IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 19188 of 2008 Between: M.A. Naseeb Khan S/o. M.A. Raqeeb Khan R/o.11-1-1204/1/3, Mallepally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of Hyderabad, Station Road Branch, Aurangabad, rep. by its SBH, Assets Recovery Branch, Ram Koti, Hyderabad. 2 B. Kalpana W/o. Capt. Prabhakar Reddy R/o. H.No.1-7-5, Habsiguda, R.M. Uppal, R.R. District. 3 M/s. Pehanava, a Regd. Partnership Firm, rep. by its Partner, R/o. Shanti Niketan colony, Aurangabad. 4 Micheal S/o. Anthony Raj R/o. 16-B, Shanti Niketan colony, Aurangabad. 5 Ramnik S/o. Anthony Raj R/o. 16-B, Shanti Niketan colony, Aurangabad. 6 Mrs. Juliana w/o. Gerad Raj R/o. H.No.190, Rest Camp, Deolali, Nasik. 7 Vidya W/o. James Raj R/o. 16-B, Shanti Niketan colony, Aurangabad. 8 Shashi W/o. Deepan Sharama R/o. Avishkar Colony, Aurangabad. 9 Geetha W/o. Bernad Shaw R/o. H.No.10-5-338/2, North Lalaguda, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.647 of 2007 in R.P.No.369 of 2002 in O.A.No.83-A of 2001 on 03.12.2007 even before condoning the delay is illegal, contrary to law and facts without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same as illegal in the interests of justice and pass all necessary orders for the said purpose. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.M.SRINIVASA SWARUP Counsel for the Respondents : None. The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 19188 of 2008 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) The petitioner, who is an auction-purchaser in recovery proceedings, has ﬁled this writ petition, questioning the order dated 3rd December 2007, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.647 of 2007 in R.A.I.R.No.7 of 2007. 2. Although the said interlocutory order is questioned in the writ petition, but when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for petitioner has requested for issuing directions for expeditious disposal of the proceedings pending before the Tribunal. 3. The 1st respondent-bank has advanced certain loan amounts to the 3rd respondent partnership Firm. To secure the loan, some properties were mortgaged, including the property belonging to the 9th respondent herein. When the loan amounts were not repaid, the 1st respondent-bank had taken steps under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. After obtaining recovery certiﬁcate and recovery proceedings were issued, the property, which belonged to respondent No.9, and which was mortgaged with the 1st respondent-bank to secure the loan granted to the 3rd respondent, was sold in auction. Petitioner is the auction-purchaser. It is stated that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of Rs.23,53,310/-. 4. In the recovery proceedings, the 2nd respondent, claiming ownership and possession over the property, has ﬁled a claim petition before the Recovery Oﬃcer. It is stated that on rejection of the claim petition ﬁled by the 2nd respondent, the matter was carried in appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in R.A.I.R.No.7 of 2007. It is stated that as the appeal was not ﬁled in time, an application was also moved, seeking to condone the delay of 1400 days. 5. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has purchased the property in the auction conducted by the Recovery Oﬃcer and deposited the entire amount, no further steps are being taken in view of the interim orders passed by the Tribunal in the appeal proceedings preferred by the 2nd respondent. It is further submitted that though there is an application for condonation of delay, even without condoning the delay, the Tribunal has passed orders in the said petition and the matter is being adjourned from time to time. 6. Even according to the petitioner, the matter is pending before the Tribunal, alongwith the application for condonation of delay. It is submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that the matter is posted on 26.09.2008 for hearing. As the matter is pending consideration before the Tribunal, it is not desirable for this Court to record any ﬁnding on the merits of the claim made by the 2nd respondent. Asmuch as it is the case of the petitioner that he has already deposited the entire consideration amount for purchase of the property in the auction-proceedings, we dispose of the writ petition, directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to dispose of the matter which is stated to be posted on 26.09.2008, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on 26.09.2008 itself, by giving opportunity to all the concerned parties. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 5th September 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Ars/ajr