HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2920 OF 2011 Between: M/s PC Infra Services Private Limited Plot No. 178, Bhagawathi Enclave ………….Petitioner AND State Bank of Patiala, Mid Corporate Branch, G. Pulla Reddy Building ………….Respondent ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 3.2.2011 passed in I.A.No. 104 of 2011 in SA No. 23 of 2011 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad as unjust and consequently direct the respondent to restore possession of items 1 and 2 of the Sale/Auction Notice dated 7.1.2011 with liberty to proceed in the event of failure of the petitioner to clear the loan amount within 18 months and pas such other order. The Debts Recovery Tribunal while granting stay in I.A. No. 104 of 2011, observed as under: “As this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Applicant has made out a prima facie case, the following conditional order of interim stay is passed:- (a) The applicant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs directly to the respondent-Bank, out of which a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to be paid on or before 19.2.2011 and the balance sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs to be paid on or before 5.3.2011 and report compliance before this Tribunal on 7.3.2011. (b) The respondent Bank is directed to defer the auction sale of the schedule property fixed on 9.2.2011 till 7.3.2011. However, the respondent-Bank is directed to collect tenders in sealed covers and keep them intact without opening till 7.3.2011; and (c) If the Applicant fails to comply with the conditional order (a) above, the interim stay shall automatically stand vacated and in such circumstance the respondent-bank is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. Notice to Respondent Bank. Private notice is permitted. Call on 7.3.2011”. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. When once the Tribunal is seized of the matter and there is no decision rendered on merits, it is not open for this Court to determine the rights of the parties. Hence, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction inasmuch as there is no decision rendered by the Tribunal on merits. The Supreme Court in L. CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA[1], also observed as under: “The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution.” Following the above judgment, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the S.A. viz., S.A.No. 23 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 11.02.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (1997) 3 SCC 261