IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 23989 of 2009 Between: Ganta Nirmala Mathew ..... PETITIONER AND The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, LIC Building, Visakhapaatnam & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23989 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the interim orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, dated 30.10.2009 in I.A.No.606 of 2009 and I.A.No.634 of 2009 in S.A.No.158 of 2009 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- before the commencement of auction scheduled to be held on 31.10.2009 and postponing the auction by one week on payment of Rs.50,000/- before the auction and Rs.4,50,000/- before 6.11.2009 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’) and consequently set aside the same. It is not in dispute that aggrieved by the measures initiated by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner filed S.A.No.158 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam wherein, she also filed an application in I.A.No.606 of 2009 to stay the sale notice, dated 15.9.2009. The Debts Recovery Tribunal by the impugned order, dated 30.10.2009 disposed of the said application on the representation made by the petitioner that she is willing to pay the amount due to the Bank, but since the property was scheduled to be soled on 31.10.2009, stay has been granted on condition of petitioner depositing Rs.5.00 lakhs before the commencement of the auction on 31.10.2009, failing which the Bank was granted liberty to proceed with the sale. In another application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.634 of 2009 the learned Tribunal while adjourning the matter to 6.11.2009 postponed the auction by one week on payment of Rs.50,000/- before the auction and Rs.4,50,000/- before 6.11.2009. It is now fairly well settled that when a statutory appeal or proceedings against the impugned order is pending before the Tribunal, a writ questioning the very same proceedings cannot be entertained. In the present case, the Tribunal only postponed the auction enabling the petitioner to deposit the amount and posted I.A.No.634 of 2009 to today. Such is the situation, filing of the present writ petition is misconceived and cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to pursue the remedies available to her under law. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) NOVEMBER 06, 2009 TSR