ORDER:

Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of 2nd respondent in transferring the vehicle No.AP04 TW 2706 with Engine No.51H 63460866, Chasis No.MAT 447224F1H19746, TATA Truck in the name of auction purchaser i.e. 4th respondent herein and keeping the application of petitioner pending since 04.04.2019, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that 3rd respondent is having three accounts with petitioner bank bearing Account No.11327915406 (Cash/Credit) for Ten Lakhs; Account No.35218634318 (Term Loan for one crore) and Account No.35293609642 (Housing Loan for eight lakhs) and an amount of Rs.90,60,846/- was due to the petitioner-bank as on 21.06.2018. On that notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued to 3rd respondent. Since the 3rd respondent failed to discharge the debt, his account was treated as non- performing asset. Petitioner bank by following the procedure auctioned the hypothecated vehicles on 28.03.2019. The 4th respondent became the highest bidder and deposited the entire amount. Petitioner-bank made application to 2nd respondent on 04.04.2019 duly complying with all the formalities and paying the required fees as per Rules, to transfer the vehicle in the name of 4th respondent. Since the 2nd respondent did not transfer the vehicle in the name of 4th respondent the writ petition was filed.

3. This Court by order dated 13.09.2021 directed the 2nd respondent to register the subject vehicle, subject to the result of the writ petition.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Transport submitted basing on written instructions received by him from the Regional Transport Officer, Proddatur in R.No.127/C2/2021 dated 27.11.2021, that the authorities have changed the vehicle in the name of 4th respondent, pending the above writ petition.

5. Notice sent to 3rd respondent was returned with an endorsement dated 22.09.2021 “addressee left without instructions”. Hence, it is deemed service of notice against the

3rd respondent. None appeared on behalf of 3rd respondent.

6. Going by the averments in the affidavit, the subject vehicle was hypothecated to the petitioner-bank. Since, the 3rd respondent committed default, petitioner-bank conducted auction of the same, wherein 4th respondent herein became the highest bidder. 3rd respondent did not take steps challenging the said auction proceedings and thus, the auction proceedings became final. Once the auction became final, the inaction on the part of the respondent authority in transferring the vehicle on payment of necessary fee and submitting necessary documents is not only illegal, but also arbitrary.

7. However, by virtue of interim order passed by this Court, the subject vehicle was transferred in the name of 4th respondent. In view of the same no further orders need to be passed in the writ petition. The prayer sought in the writ petition, is worked out.

8. In view of the same, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

22nd May, 2022

PVD