The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process, prevent biased conduct by judicial officers, and ensure compliance with mandatory provisions of the law.

This writ petition is one among the many writ petitions and civil revision petitions filed against the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in gross violation of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions, 1993, and Securitisation and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

THE FACTS:-

2. The petitioner is stated to be a cultivating tenant in respect of property in S.No.7/2A, No.110, Kulathur Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District. The said property was the subject matter in O.S.No.123 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Udumalpet. The Bank obtained an exparta preliminary decree in the said suit on 18 July 1994 for a sum of Rs.1,14,653.99 along with interest @ 6% p.a. The Bank thereafter filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.358 of 2001 to pass a final decree. Accordingly, final decree was passed on 20 October 2003. Subsequent to the constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Bank filed application in O.A.No.43 of 2005 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. Recovery Certificate was issued on 24 March 2008 pursuant to the order in O.A.No.43 of 2005.

3. The petitioner, in his capacity as cultivating tenant, filed an application in I.A.No.2113 of 2008 before the Recovery Officer stating that the property mentioned in Schedule I would be sufficient to satisfy the Decree, and requested to exclude the property in Schedule II from the schedule of property proposed to be auctioned. The said application was dismissed by the Recovery Officer on 13 March 2009. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.1/2009. The petitioner also filed an application in I.A.No.522 of 2009 in Appeal No.1/2009 to stay all further proceedings pending disposal of the appeal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, dismissed the application in I.A.No.522 of 2009 on 24 April 2009.

4. The order dated 24 April 2009 was challenged by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in M.A.No.278 of 2010. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal granted interim stay on 22 May 2009. The Recovery Officer originally issued a Sale Certificate in favour of third respondent on 20 July 2009 and it was cancelled later. The third respondent was impleaded as a party to the appeal. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal by order dated 13 June 2011 and directed the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, to take up the appeal itself for final hearing and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

5. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, took the appeal for hearing and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 31 March 2012 and the remaining amount within a period of sixty days thereafter for the purpose of settling the entire dues. The petitioner promptly paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 28 March 2012, pursuant to the direction issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. While so, the third respondent, stated to be the auction purchaser filed an application in I.A.No.278 of 2012 in Appeal No.1 of 2009 to implead her as a party. The learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, even without ordering notice to the petitioner, allowed the said application and took up the application filed by the third respondent to review the earlier order dated 13 March 2012. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his version before impleading the third respondent as party to the proceeding. The petitioner wanted a copy of the order in I.A.No.278 of 2012, so as to enable him to challenge the same before the Appellate Authority. Though the petitioner filed application for issuance of certified copies of the proceedings in I.A.No.278 of 2012, and the order impleading the third respondent as a party, the Presiding Officer deliberately dragged the matter without furnishing copy. The