HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 11899 OF 2010 Between: Smt. Dammalapati Ranga Jyothi W/o Ramesh Babu, ..... PETITIONER AND 1. State Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and on their request the matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to orders dated 17.5.2010 passed in I.A.No. 298 of 2010 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal at the stage of interlocutory in I.A.No. 298 of 2010 in S.A.No. 102 of 2010 passed the following docket order dated 17.5.2010: “Postpone the finalization of tenders. The applicant is directed to pay Rs. 6.5 lakhs on or before 31.5.2010 failing which the bank can take further steps. Call on 8.6.2010.” Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the guarantor to one D. Suresh Babu, who is proprietor of Sohini Cements at Chirala, Prakasham District, and who approached the 1st respondent’s bank in the month of May 2009 and the first respondent bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 35 lacks as cash credit facility on his standing as a guarantor and on his depositing the original title deeds of his vacant site of 60 cents in S.No. 187 at Podili, Prakasham District. It is stated that due to unavoidable circumstances the debt could not be discharged to the Bank by the principle borrower within the time stipulated. Hence, the first respondent Bank has issued a demand notice in November 2009. While matters stood thus, the State Bank of India , represented by its Chief Manager and Authorized Officer, Chirala, the second respondent herein has issued notice under Section 14(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SRFAESI” Act) for taking possession of his house site and a publication was made on 7.1.2010 in Eenadu daily to that effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed S.A.No. 10/2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam along with I.A.No. 19 of 2010, seeking stay of all further proceedings. The Tribunal granted stay till 1.2.2010 on condition of his depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- directly to the Bank, and it was clarified that if the matter is not settled within one month the bank is entitled to proceed further under the SRFAESI Act. Accordingly, the amount was deposited. While so, the respondent Bank in a hasty manner issued publication in Eenadu daily dated 13.4.2010 inviting sealed tenders from the public for the sale of property of the petitioner fixing the date as 19.5.2010 for opening the sealed tenders by its sale notice dated 12.4.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed S.A.No. 102 of 2010 challenging the auction notice dated 12.4.2010 published on 13.4.2010 along with I.A.No. 298 of 2010, seeking stay of the auction notice. Thereupon the Tribunal granted stay by its order dated 27.4.2010 on condition of his depositing a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- directly into the bank to the credit of the loan on or before 13.5.2010 and the same was deposited. Thereafter, the tribunal has taken up the matter on 17.5.2010 and further passed a docket order dated 17.5.2010 directing the petitioner to pay further sum of Rs. 6.5 laksh on or before 31.5.2010 failing which the bank can take further steps on the auction notice. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. We have perused the material made available on record. When once the Tribunal is seized of the matter and there is no decision rendered on merit, it is not open for this Court to determine the rights of the parties. Hence, we are not inclined to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction inasmuch as there is no decision rendered by the Tribunal on merits. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated in the affidavit as well as orally that the petitioner is willing to clear off the entire outstanding amount together with interest if the time granted stands extended till the end of this month, as he is facing lot of financial crisis. Since it is represented that the concerned Presiding Officer is on leave, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioner to clear off his entire outstanding amount by the end of this month, failing which the Bank is at liberty to proceed with the further proceedings in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD ,J DATE: 01.06.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.