COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.)

Heard Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.N.Dilip Kumar learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6.

2.All these writ petitions have been filed by the borrowers of housing loan from the erst-while State Bank of Trivancore, Trichirapalli Branch, for the project which was developed by the seventh respondent, Mr.Suresh Thirumalai, Proprietor, Sri Aditya Builders.

3.The petitioners have alleged fraud said to have been taken place as the then Chief Manager of the erst-while State Bank of Trivancore, (hereinafter referred to as "SBT" ) who has been impleaded in the personal capacity as eighth respondent, colluded with the seventh respondent and funds were released to the seventh respondent in full, even prior to the completion of the project. The net result was all the petitioners did not service the loan account as a result they became defaulters. Obviously, the SBT had to initiate action and thereafter, proceeded under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act”).

4.The petitioners challenge the measures taken by the SBT by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in which, an order of interim stay was granted subject to certain conditions, but the same were not complied with. Consequently, the stay petitions ought to have been dismissed and the petitioners did not pursue the SARFAESI appeals filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

5.The petitioners' concentration stood diverted and how to bring to hooks the then Chief Manager of the erstwhile SBT and the petitioners also came to know that already the management of SBT had given a complaint and the matter was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and First Information Report was registered in Crime No.RC MA1 2014 A0018 on the file of the Chennai SPE-CBI- ACB, and therefore, filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.893 of 2016, praying for a direction to conduct an enquiry into the complaint given by the petitioners, which were also on the similar lines that of the complaints already taken on file. The writ petition was disposed of placing on record the development. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioners continue to remain as defaulters did not pay any amount towards loan account and when the house properties were put up for sale, pursuant to e-auction sale notice, dated 12.06.2017, the present writ petitions have been filed. At the time when the writ petitions were entertained, an interim order was granted, which was subsequently made absolute.

6.The first limb of the prayer sought for by the writ petitioners to quash the e-auction sale notice, has worked itself out, since the e-auction sale was not conducted, as an order of interim stay was granted and the date fixed for e-auction has already been lapsed Therefore, nothing survives in the e-auction sale notice impugned in these writ petitions.

7.The second limb of the prayer concerns the enquiry into the complaint given by the petitioners, dated 15.12.2015.

8.In our considered view, the second limb of the prayer is an independent cause of auction and it cannot be a consequential relief to the writ petitions filed to quash the e-auction notice. Therefore, the second limb of the prayer sought for in these writ petitions cannot be granted.

9.Thus, we would have been well justified to close the matter and dispose the writ petitions with the above observations. However, we find that the petitioners have all purchased meagre extent of land in a project developed with the seventh respondent, which appears to be a gated community and according to the petitioners, four of the houses still remain unfinished, the remaining two have been pooled from their personal resources and completed the unfinished building left as such by the seventh respondent.

10.In such circumstances, it