1. The Bank of India, Mehidipatnam Branch represented by its Chief Manager maintained the writ petition against the five respondents including the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'DRTH'), M/s. Pratap Poultry Farm, a partnership firm represented by its partners viz., L.V. Pratap Reddy and L. Santha and the Union of India represented by its Secretary, Banking Division, New Delhi. The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the order (notice) reference F. No. 31/1/2000-DRT (H), dated 29.05.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to declare the orders dated 09.11.2015 are not in force so as to permit the petitioner-creditor Bank to go for public e-auction of the security interest/secured assets and pass such other just orders. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition of the Chief Manager of the petitioner-Bank supra reads that the 2nd respondent-firm represented by its partners/respondent Nos. 3 and 4 availed financial assistance and created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds pertaining to the landed property with poultry sheds and with building which are standing in the name of Sri L.V. Pratap Reddy, 3rd respondent, in different extents and for the debt classified as non-performing asset (for short, 'NPA'), the bank initiated measures for recovery of the secured debt under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, 'the Act') demand notice and for nonpayment, issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act and proceeded to take possession of the mortgaged properties, for their failure to pay despite undertaking to pay. Having received the possession notice supra, the firm and its partners supra filed S.A. No. 478 of 2015 claiming as if the lands are agricultural lands and are exempted by Section 31 of the Act from the applicability of the Act among other grounds including against classification as NPA despite the same is duly classified and the lands are agricultural lands, nor is in use as such, much-less capable of being used for agricultural purposes from different activity is running therein. It is further averred that in S.A. No. 478 of 2015 filed before the Chairman, DRTH who is the in-charge presiding officer from Calcutta, there was an interim order granted in I.A. No. 3312 of 2015 dated 09.11.2014 which reads 'list the matter for hearing on 18.11.2015 at Hyderabad, till such time the defendant-bank should not make any further action against the secured assets of the applicant. The bank filed counter affidavit on 18.11.2015 opposing the above interim order, but the case was not taken up for hearing due to non sitting of the presiding officer and subsequently posted for hearing but the presiding officer could not take up for hearing of said petition. The interim orders operate only till 18.11.2015 for not extended by the Tribunal from time to time subsequently. Further, the postings are given by the Tribunal from time to time of the S.A. No. 478 of 2015 viz., 04.12.2015, 14.12.2015, 22.12.2015, 20.01.2016, 22.01.2016, 10.02.2016 and 21.03.2016 for no regular sitting of the presiding officer in DRTH. Further, on enquiry, it came to know that, an administrative order dated 29.05.2015 was passed by the Tribunal under the signature of the Registrar, DRT as follows:

"Ld. Advocates and the parties are put to notice that in the matters where ad-interim orders are passed till a particular date or next date of hearing and in the event the Hon'ble Presiding Officer is not sitting at Hyderabad on the said date, the ad-interim orders in such matters would be extended and adjourned to the next immediate date of the sitting of the Hon'ble Presiding Officer at Hyderabad.

This issues with the directions of the Hon'ble Presiding Officer."

2. It is contended that by virtue of said orders of the Tribu