THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P. No. 6492 of 2010 DATE: 22-03-2010 Between: Sri Thanari Apparao ….. Petitioner And Bank of India rep., by its Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Zonal Office,, Visakhapatnam and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P. No. 6492 of 2010 Order: (Per: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) The petitioner admittedly stood guarantee for a loan availed by the 3rd respondent from the 1st respondent-bank, a secured creditor. The 3rd respondent apparently defaulted on the installments of the loan and the debt was declared a ‘non- performing asset’ and proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. Possession of the secured asset was taken, including the petitioner’s property which was offered as collateral for the guarantee furnished by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby including the proceedings initiated for sale of the secured assets, the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) under Section 17 of the Act. The appeal was numbered as S.A.No.80 of 2009. Interim stay of all further proceedings was granted by the order of the learned Tribunal dated 11-05-2009, on condition of deposit of Rs.50,000-00 into the respondent’s bank on or before 22-06-2009. S.A.No. 80 of 2009 was however dismissed on 15-10-2009 since the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order of deposit and had deposited only an amount of Rs.20,000-00. The petitioner thereupon filed I.A.No. 684 of 2009 seeking recall of the dismissal order and to restore the appeal to be heard on merits. In the interregnum the 1st respondent notified on 19-02-2010 the sale of the secured assets for recovery of the liability of the 3rd respondent, in an amount of Rs.10,23,115-00 scheduling the sale to 22-03-2010. By an order dated 12-03-2010 the Tribunal allowed I.A.No. 684 of 2009 on condition that the petitioner should deposit Rs.1,00,000-00 into the loan account by 14-04-2010. The petitioner states to have deposited Rs.70,000-00 on 19-03-2010 and is yet to deposit Rs.30,000-00 before 14-04-2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there is time till 14-04-2010 to deposit the entirety of Rs.1,00,000-00 of which Rs.70,000-00 was already deposited, the respondent-bank is proceeding to sell the property. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appeal had been dismissed for default and its restoration is on condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.1,00,000-00 and in the factual circumstances that the earlier conditional order of the Tribunal was not complied with by the petitioner viz., the deposit of Rs. 50,000- 00, this Court discerns no arbitrariness or irrationality in the action of the 1st respondent in proceeding with the auction as per its sale notification. The petitioner is seen to be a persistent defaulter of conditions imposed by the learned Tribunal and hence disentitled for any discretion by this Court. No case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ___________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Dated: 22-03-2010 PVKS