Telangana High Court
Sri Chandragiri Yesu Ratnam vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal Ii on 16 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Writ Petition No.16129 of 2025
Mr.Ujwal Babu Kuppala, learned counsel for the petitioner.
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who claims to be the successful auction purchaser in respect of the property belonging to R.4 (borrower), is unable to explain as to why the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy available to the petitioner under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. In any event, counsel points to an order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Hyderabad ('DRT-II') on an application filed by R.4/borrower. Counsel submits that this order was an exparte order and that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice. However, the facts reflect that the order of the DRT-II was passed five years six months back i.e., in 2019 and the petitioner herein was the respondent No.2 in the said proceedings.
3. No fact has been placed before the Court to show as to why the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should entertain a matter where the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available to him. A mere allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice or judicial procedure is not sufficient to 2 entertain the Writ Petition in the absence of any fact or law which would come to the aid of the petitioner.
4. W.P.No.16129 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the statutory forum in accordance with law.
Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 16th June, 2025.
BMS