(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 2 in making further demolitions, new constructions and also trying to create third party interest in the subject property of SA.No.177 of 2024, on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll Abids, Hyderabad, by violating the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1199 of 2025 in SA No.177 of 2024, dated 04-06-2025, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principal of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India  and consequently punish the respondents 1 2 herein, for their deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1199 of 2025 in SA No.177 of 2024, dated 04-06-2025 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to consider complaints of the petitioner dated 10.03.2025 and 31.03.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 8.7.2025 in Writ Petition NO. 16871 of 2025 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the Interim prayer as direct the 2nd respondent not to alienate the property and not to change Physical features of property including repairs by demolishing the property in pursuance of the orders passed in IA.No.1199 of 2025 in SA.No.177 of 2024 dated 04-06-2025, pending disposal of the writ petition Instead of punish the respondents 1 and 2 herein, for their deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1199 of 2025 in SA No.177 of 2024, dated 04.06.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition. And pass)

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the conduct of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in making further demolitions and makes new constructions and also creating third party interest in the subject property of S.A.No.177 of 2024, on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Abids, Hyderabad, in violation of the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II in I.A.No.1199 of 2025 in S.A.No.177 of 2024, dated 04.06.2025, as illegal and to punish the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the deliberate disobedience to the orders.

2. The contention of the writ petitioner is that in respect of the subject property, he has filed S.A.No.177 of 2024 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Abids, Hyderabad, challenging the e-auction Sale Notice, dated 11.03.2024 and fixing the auction date on 16.04.2024, without following the due process of law.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the E-auction Sale Notice, dated 26.07.2024 is issued fixing an auction date as 14.08.2024. He filed an application for amendment and stay of further proceedings. However, the property was sold in pursuance to the auction on 14.08.2024. Then, he filed I.A.No.2549 of 2024 seeking details from the Bank as to auction conducted.

4. Thereafter, in I.A.No.1199 of 2025 in S.A.No.177 of 2024 on 04.06.2025, the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal passed orders as follows.

                  “As undertaken, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed not to undertake any further demolitions, new constructions or create third party interest in any manner in respect of the petition schedule property pending disposal of the S.A. According, I.A.No.1199/2025 is disposed of with the above direction".

5. Further, it is the contention of the writ petitioner that in spite of the orders of the Tribunal, respondent No.2 is going on demolitions and new constructions in disobedience to the orders of the Tribunal. Hence, writ petitioner has filed an application vide IAIR 1975 of 2025 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking to punish the auction purchaser/respondent No.2 for violating the orders. But the Tribunal rejected the application vide orders dated 27.06.2025 as follows.

                  “The instant petition is filed under Sec. 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as per which the powers lie with the Hon'ble High court to consider the petitions under section 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act and decide quantum and type of punishment under Sec. 12 hence the petition is not maintainable before this Tribunal and accordingly IAIR 1975/2025 is rejected.”

6. Now, the writ petitioner requests this Court to take contempt proceedings in this writ petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.1199 of 2025 are violated.

7. (1). The objection of the respondents is that the writ petition is not maintainable for taking contempt action.

                  (2). There is no damage to the property. The action if any on the part of the respondents is only a value addition, and they will not claim equities in the event of ultimate success of the writ petitioner in the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The writ petitioner ought to have proceed with the SA, when the same is pending before the competent Tribunal.

8. Heard both sides extensively and perused the material available on record.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that possession was taken by Advocate Commissioner and auction purchaser is in the possession of the property.

10. It is clear that the writ petitioner wants this Court to punish the respondents invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If at all, there is any contempt, proceeding in terms of Contempt of Courts Act for any violation is proper is the argument, for which there is no answer. Therefore, the argument is found convincing.

11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the writ petitioner is at liberty to prosecute his remedies as per law in respect of any action of the respondents either before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal or in terms of the Contempt of Court Act by initiating appropriate proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.