A writ petition seeking refund of bid amount is not maintainable when a dispute exists over the same pertaining to a Securitisation Application pending before Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.39469 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, in Ext.P1 E-

Auction notice dated 26.02.2018 issued by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents pertaining to the immovable property of the 4^th respondent measuring an extent of 6.07 ares in Re-Survey No. 96/3 in block No.9 of Nedumbassery Village, which is the secured asset of the financial facility offered to respondents 3 and 4, Sri.Vinod.M.A, who is the husband of the 1^st appellant and son of the 2^nd appellant, became the successful bidder, and upon payment of 25% of the bid, amounting to Rs.9,00,500/-, the bid was confirmed in his favour. The successful bidder thereafter could not remit the balance 75% of the bid amount, in view of the pendency of S.A.No.157 of 2018 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), filed by the 3^rd and

4^th respondents, challenging Ext.P1 E-Auction. Ext.P3 proceedings in S.A.No.157 of 2018 reveal that there is serious laches on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in not seeking early disposal of the case pending before the Tribunal, protecting the interest of the successful bidder. During the pendency of the S.A, the successful bidder expired, leaving behind legal heirs, the appellants. Due to the inordinate delay in disposal of S.A.No.157 of 2018, the appellants submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 04.10.2025, before the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, seeking refund of the 25% of the bid amount remitted, as they were no longer interested in continuing with the confirmation of sale process pursuant to Ext.P1. To Ext.P6, Ext.P7 reply dated 14.10.2025 was given by the bank, expressing their inability to refund the amount, in view of the pendency of S.A.No.157 of 2018 before the Tribunal. Being highly aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in not considering Ext.P6 favourably, the appellants filed W.P.(C)No.39469 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to release the amount of Rs.9,00,500/- deposited by the successful bidder, in connection with Ext.P1 E-Auction sale notice, with accrued interest thereof, to the petitioners, being the legal heirs of the successful bidder, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

b) Direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners, towards the mental agony and loss suffered by them, for the delay caused in fulfilling the obligations cast upon them while issuing Ext.P1 E-auction notice”.

3. Along with I.A No.1 of 2025 filed in the writ petition, the appellants produced Ext.P8 document.

4. On 20.11.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment, whereby the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Tribunal to take up Ext.P8 interlocutory application filed in S.A.No.157 of 2018 for impleading the appellants, as expeditiously as possible and directing the Tribunal to dispose of S.A.No.157 of 2018 finally within a period of three months from the date of impleading the appellants in S.A. Being aggrieved, the appellants-

petitioners have filed the present writ appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appeal filed by responde