WP(C) 177/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. H. Thakuria, learned Central Govt. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respo ndent Nos.1 and 2. By order, dated 08.09.2000, passed, in OA No.74/97, Presiding Officer, Debts Rec overy Tribunal, Guwahati, (in short, ’the DRT’) issued a recovery certificate ag ainst six persons named in the said certificate. Pursuant to the recovery certif icate so issued, a sale of immovable property, which was shown to be covered by the said sale certificate, took place on 22.12.2006, the sale having been conduc ted by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Guwahati. Neither in the recovery certificate aforementioned nor at the time of auction sale, the present petitioner was eithe r made a party or appeared as a party to the auction sale. No notice was, accord ing to the petitioner, served on him. The petitioner claims that on coming to know about the said auction sale, he mad e a representation, on 19.01.2007, to the Recovery Officer, DRT, Guwahati, in te rms of the provisions of Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Fi nancial Institutions Act, 1993, (in short, ’the said Act’) objecting to the said auction sale and also seeking the same to be recalled. To the representation so made, respondent No.3, namely, The State Bank of India, filed their objection o n 20.03.2007. By order, dated 26.06.2007, the Recovery Officer, DRT, Guwahati, r ejected the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner, then, preferred an appeal, on 06.07.2007, under Section 30 of the said Act against the order, date d 26.06.2007, aforementioned. No order staying or suspending the auction sale, w hich had taken place, on 22.12.2006, was passed in the said appeal nor was any o rder passed staying or suspending the order, dated 26.06.2007. In fact, on the p rayer for stay of the order, dated 26.06.2007, the Presiding Officer, DRT, Guwah ati, issued notice fixing the matter, on 26.12.2007, for hearing. As the Presidi ng Officer was on leave, the Registrar, DRT, Guwahati, fixed the matter for nece ssary order on 04.02.2008. The petitioner’s grievance, now, is that the Recovery Officer is proceeding with the recovery proceeding and contrary to what the petitioner had sought for, an order has been passed, on 31.12.2007, by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Guwahati, di recting the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, to make necessary arrangements includ ing making of police force available to enable the State Bank of India to take o ver the auctioned property. In the above backdrop of events, the petitioner has, with the help of this appli cation, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought for issuance of writ(s) directing the respondent No.2 to stay the operation of the order, da ted 31.12.2007, till disposal of the said appeal. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be noted is that the recovery certificate was issued on 08.09.2000 and this recovery certificate, adm ittedly, included the property, which has been put to auction-sale. The petition er’s grievance is that he was not made a party to the recovery proceeding, no no tice was issued to him though his land stand included in the said auction sale p roceeding, and he had never mortgaged his said land with the State Bank of India . While considering the above submissions, what needs to be noted is that the reco very certificate, having mentioned the auctioned land as the property, which was to be put to sale for recovery of dues, the Recovery Officer appears to have, a s the matters on record reflect, committed no error, while going ahead with the recovery proceeding. The petitioner has, however, challenged the said order, da ted 26.06.2007, in the appeal. It is, indeed, doubtful as to how far an appeal a gainst the order, dated 26.06.2007, really lies under Section 30 of the said Act inasmuch as a Recovery Officer is bound to put into execution the property cove red by a recovery certificate. This apart, though a prayer for stay of the order , dated 26.06.2007, had been made by the petitioner, no such order was passed, o n 31.12.2007, by the Presiding Officer and merely a notice, on the prayer for st ay, was directed to be issued. In such circumstances, it is difficult to treat t he order, dated 26.12.2007, as an order without jurisdiction or improper in law. Confronted with the situations as indicated hereinabove, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, seeks some time to make appropriate applicati on or prefer an appeal against the order, dated 26.06.2007, and/or against the o rder dated 31.12.2007, whereby the prayer for stay, made by the petitioner, was neither granted nor rejected. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the petitioner may be given some time to move an application or prefer an appeal as indicated h ereinbefore and lest such an application or appeal become infructuous, the order , dated 31.12.2007, may be temporarily suspended. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty given to the petitioner to make appropriat e application or prefer appropriate appeal in accordance with law for remedy of his grievances. For a period of two weeks from today, the order, dated 31.12.200 7, shall remain suspended. The respondent No.3, namely, the State Bank of India, shall remain at liberty to move this Court for modification/vacation/alteration of the directions given hereinbefore. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand dispo sed of.