ORDER :

Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. By common order dated 05.03.2019, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), allowed Recovery Appeal Nos.03 and 04 of 2014 in R.P.No.512 of 2003 in O.A.No.455 of 2000. Aggrieved thereby, Shubham Enterprises, a partnership firm, the eighth respondent in the said appeals, being the auction purchaser, filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the said common order was illegal and to set it aside.

2. By order dated 12.03.2019, this Court directed status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained.

3. Heard Sri P.Sriraghuram, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. A.Satya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner/eighth respondent; Sri R.Raghunandan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri M.S.Srinivasa Iyyengar, learned counsel for the first respondent/appellant; and Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for IndusInd Bank Limited, the second respondent/first respondent.

4. At the outset, we may note that though a common order was passed by the Tribunal, it actually related to two separate appeals. However, the petitioner, in its wisdom, chose to file only one writ petition. The ground cited by it for approaching this Court instead of invoking the statutory appellate remedy available to it was that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata was not sitting, owing to want of a Presiding Officer. Even if so, the petitioner ought to have filed two separate cases and not one.

5. Be that as it may. We proceed to adjudicate on merits.

6. IndusInd Bank Limited (for brevity, ‘the bank’) secured an ex parte order on 25.08.2003 in O.A.No.455 of 2000 on the file of the Tribunal. Recovery Certificate bearing R.P.No.512 of 2003 dated 01.10.2003 was issued in consequence thereof. The demand notice sent on 17.12.2003 by the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal, the tenth respondent herein/ninth respondent in the appeals, was not served upon the first respondent, viz., the Certificate Debtor No.3. No steps were however initiated by the Recovery Officer to effect substituted service of the demand notice by publication thereof, though the bank requested for the same. This aspect is however disputed by Sri P.Sriraghuram, learned senior counsel.

7. The Recovery Officer attached the property, which was the subject matter of the appeals, vide Order dated 24.05.2005 passed in M.P.No.23 of 2005. He issued Form-16 dated 07.06.2005 attaching the property belonging to the first respondent, viz., the Certificate Debtor No.3, and on the same day issued the notice of proclamation in Form-17. These forms were also not served upon the first respondent. Proclamation of sale was issued by the Recovery Officer on 09.09.2005 fixing the date of auction as 18.10.2005. In the said auction, the petitioner was declared the highest bidder for Item No.1 property (Plot No.4) with a bid of Rs.2.63 Crore while one Bhagyanagar Metals Limited was declared the highest bidder for Item No.2 property (Plot No.2) with a bid of Rs.2.75 Crore. However, basing on the affidavits filed by the representatives of Bhagyanagar Metals Limited and the petitioner, the Recovery Officer changed the name of the highest bidder for Item No.2 property from Bhagyanagar Metals Limited to the name of the petitioner. This was on 02.11.2005. Thereafter, basing on the Memos filed by the petitioner and the bank, the Recovery Officer passed an order on 23.11.2005 directing refund of a sum of Rs.93,49,600/-, out of the sale proceeds of Rs.5.38 Crore, to the petitioner towards deficiency in the land area and owing to a high tension wire passing over it. Then, on 25.11.2005, the Recovery Officer set aside the sale on the ground of irregularity in the auction. The petitioner however submitted Memo dated 28.11.2005 to the Recovery Officer in this regard and thereupon, the Recovery Officer set aside the Order dated 25.11.2005 and confirmed the sale held on 18.10.2005. He then issued a Sale Certificate on 05.12.2005.

8. According to the first responden