IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.16468 OF 2010 BETWEEN: M/s. VJM Projects Private Limited, A private limited company, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director …. Petitioner AND The Authorised Officer, M/s. Karnataka Bank and Others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.16468 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.12 – Debts Recovery Tribunal in hearing and passing orders in I.A. IR No.773 of 2010 and the action of respondent No.1 – M/s. Karnataka Bank in seeking to sell away the property of respondent Nos.2 to 11, for which the petitioner has an agreement of sale, by way of public auction as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the notice of sale of immovable property dated 09-06-2010 issued by respondent No.1 and also to direct respondent No.12 to hear and dispose of the I.A. IR No.773 of 2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On 12-07-2010, this Court ordered as follows in W.P.M.P. No.20751 of 2010: “The petitioner who is an agreement holder has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing I.A. IR. No.773 of 2010 seeking stay. It is represented that the Presiding Officer is not there and the Bank has issued notice under rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 for auctioning the property and the auction is scheduled to be held on 12-07-2010 viz., today at 11.00 AM. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner moved “House Motion” yesterday. As the proceedings are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal normally we are not inclined to entertain this petition. But as seen from the affidavit, the Presiding Officer is not there and the Bank is going to conduct auction of the property today and if the property of the petitioner is put to auction, he will be put to irreparable loss as he has entered into an agreement of sale with the borrower with regard to three properties which have been mortgaged in favour of the Bank. It is further on record that the petitioner has already been paid Rs.45 lakhs to the borrower to protect his interest, he came up with a proposal that he is willing to pay rupees One Crore within four weeks in two installments from today, we are inclined to grant interim stay. Accordingly, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings as prayed for including putting the property in auction on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.25 lakhs within a period of two weeks from today and remaining amount of Rs.75 lakhs within two weeks thereafter. If any deviation, the Bank is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.” 4. But, the petitioner has not complied with the above order of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to work out his remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal immediately to question the validity or otherwise of the sale notice under Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, issued by respondent No.1. 6. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J July 28, 2010. _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J NOTE: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O) KTL