APHC010271662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 14465 OF 2026 Between: 1. Smt. Kodali Veera Venkamma @ Padmavathi,, W/o.K.Suryanarayana, aged about 58 years, R/o.D.No.103-7-45, Bhavanipuram, Rajavole, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Authorised Officer, SMFG India Credit Company Limited, Kakinada, Kakinada District-533001. 3. Koppisetti Diwakar, S/o.late Ramakrishna, aged about 40 years, R/o.22- 135, Thotapeta Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.A.Konaseema District- 533287. 4. Yalla Venkata Ramana, S/o.Govind, aged about 44 years, R/o5-91, Voolapalli, Biccavole Mandal, East Godavari District - 533343. 5. Reddy Vijay Madhav, S/o.Venkata Ramana, aged about 34 years, R/o.8- 101, G.Mamidada, Pedapudi Manal, presently at Kakinada - 521263. 6. Sai Jaswitha Enterprises, Office at D.No.8-186, MHR Shopping Complex, Gollalamamidada, Pedapudi Mandal, Kakinada District - 521263. 7. Uddanda Teja Srilalitha, W/o.not known, aged not known, R/o.3-88, Sabbellavari Street, Gollalamamidada, Pedapudi Mandal, Kakinada District. 8. Siripuram Gireesh Kumar, Advocate Commissioner, Bar Association, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District-533101. 9. The Station House Officer, Draksharama Police Station, Dr.B.R.A.Konaseema District. 2 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus directions for early disposal of the I.A.No.4200/2025 in I.R. (S.A.)No.653/2025 Dairy No.2131/2025 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Visakhapatnam, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Notice dated 27-5-2025 issued by the Respondent No.2, including dispossession of the Petitioner from the property bearing D.No.2-287 RCC Roof Ground and first floor slab bed building along with an extent of Ac.0.06 % cents site in full extent of Ac.0.82 cents in R.S.No.35/2B situated at Thotapeta Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, till disposal of I.A.No.4200/2025 in IR(SA)No.653/2025 Dairy No.2131/2025 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Visakhapatnam, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.14465 of 2026 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela) This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directions for early disposal of the I.A.No.4200/2025 in I.R. (S.A.) No.653/2025, Dairy No.2131/2025, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short “Tribunal”). 2) Heard Sri B.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3) In spite of service of notice, none entered appearance for the respondents. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal without disposing the petitions filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.4200/2025 in I.R. (S.A.) No.653/2025, Dairy No.2131/2025 and I.A.No.4201 of 2025, has proceeded with the application seeking for appointment of Advocate- Commissioner to take possession of the property. 5) On 14.05.2026, this Court passed detailed orders directing the 8th respondent to maintain status quo. This Court has taken note of the contents placed by the petitioner in the petition and after considering all the facts, passed the said orders. 6) Section 17(5) and (6) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, reads as follows: 4 “5. Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application:Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1). 6. If the application is not disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as specified in sub-section (5), any party to the application may make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, on such application, make an order for expeditious disposal of the pending application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal”. 7) Since two Interlocutory Applications are admittedly pending before the Tribunal, this Court feels that it is appropriate to direct the Tribunal to pass orders on the said two Interlocutory Applications after hearing both parties. 8) There is no cavil of doubt with the proposition that, the Tribunals are subjected to supervising jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others1, at paragraph Nos.18 & 19, observed as follows: “18. Subordination of Tribunals and courts functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court can be either judicial or administrative or both. The power of superintendence exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is judicial superintendence and not administrative superintendence, such as one which vests in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution over subordinate courts. Vide para 96 of L. Chandra Kumars case, the Constitution Bench did not agree with the suggestion that the tribunals be made subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts within whose territorial jurisdiction they fall, as our constitutional scheme does 1 (2001) 1 SCC 516 5 not require that all adjudicatory bodies which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of any High Court should be subject to its supervisory jurisdiction. Obviously, the supervisory jurisdiction referred to by the Constitution Bench in para 96 of the judgment is the supervision of the administrative functioning of the tribunals as is spelt out by discussion made in paras 96 and 97 of the judgment….”. 19. …………“We are therefore clearly of the opinion that there is no anathema in the tribunal exercising jurisdiction of High Court and in that sense being supplemental or additional to the High Court but at the same time not enjoying status equivalent to High Court and also being subject to judicial review and judicial superintendence of the High Court”. 10) Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, to pass orders in I.A.No.4200/2025 in I.R. (S.A.) No.653/2025, Dairy No.2131/2025 and I.A.No.4201 of 2025, after hearing both parties, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such time, the interim orders granted by this Court on 14.05.2026 shall be in force. 11) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Dated: 31.08.2026 PGR 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.14465 of 2026 Dt. 31.08.2026 PGR