THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Writ Petition No.986 of 2011 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in selling the property as described in Schedules ‘B’, “C” and “D” in the Proclamation of Sale in R.P.No.184 of 2002 in O.A.No.144 of 1995 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’), without following procedure as prescribed under the Procedure for Recovery of Tax, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner No.3 is the mother of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. They state that the second respondent-Bank filed O.A.No.144 of 1995 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,57,944-40 ps and the same was allowed ex parte and thereafter, it issued a Recovery Certificate on 06.01.1999. Further, the Tribunal issued Proclamation of Sale on 20.11.2009 in R.P.No.184 of 2002 in O.A.No.144 of 1995 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,68,57,878.88ps. The petitioners filed an application seeking to set aside the sale of the properties in question. They also filed an application under Rule 60 seeking to permit them to deposit the amount. They state that though the said application is pending before the Tribunal, the respondents are proceeding with the recovery proceedings. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent Bank has not served any notice on the petitioners before issuing the proclamation of sale as prescribed under Rule 53. He further submitted that as the application seeking permission to deposit the amount by the petitioners is pending before the Tribunal, a direction may be given to dispose of the said application. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank contended that Rule 60 is applicable if the petitioners approach the Bank within 30 days from the date of auction and deposits the entire amount. He further contended that the application seeking permission to deposit the same was rejected by the Tribunal on 11.06.2010. He further submitted that paper publication was issued for sale of the properties in question and as such Rule 53 has been complied with. 6. From a perusal of material on record, it is clear that no notice has been served on the petitioners before issuance of Proclamation of Sale by the Tribunal, as per the procedure contemplated under Rule 53, which reads as under: 53. Contents of proclamation: A proclamation of the sale of immovable property shall be, drawn up after notice to the defaulter, and shall state the time and place of sale, and shall specify, as fairly and accurately as possible-- (a) the property to be sold; (b) the revenue, if any, assessed upon the property or any part thereof; (c) the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered; (cc) the reserve price, if any, below which the property may not be sold and (d) any other thing which the Tax Recovery Officer considers it material for a purchaser to know, in order to judge the nature and value of the properly. 7. Though the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the application of the petitioners seeking to permit them to deposit the amount was rejected by the Tribunal on 11.06.2010, copy of the same is not produced before this Court. 8. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the application filed by the petitioners seeking to permit them to deposit the amount, if not already disposed of, within a period of two weeks from today. Pending disposal of the said application, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:01.02.2011 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. sj