ORDER One M/s. Sujatha Handlooms borrowed certain amounts from respondent 2-Corporation Bank. The said Sujatha Handlooms was not in a position to discharge the loan. Hence, proceedings were initiated to recover the amount in O.S. No. 1391 of 1993. The said suit was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal and treated as original application. The said application was allowed and the Bank was given liberty to realise the decretal amount of Rs. 6,82,511/- by sale of the mortgaged properties. It appears, the said borrower M/s. Sujatha Hondlooms questioned the said order before the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai and the same was dismissed. An appeal was also preferred and dismissed. A public auction was conducted on 11-12-2008 pursuant to a notification. The petitioner claims that he is a successful bidder in the auction and accordingly made deposits in terms of the notification. The deposit made by the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 81,81,010/-. A memo is also filed by the petitioner on 16-1-2009 for issuance of a sale certificate. It appears, several interlocutory applications were filed by M/s. Sujatha Handlooms for different reliefs which were not granted. The petitioner, it appears has issued a legal notice on 5-5-2009 requesting the Recovery Officer to deliver possession, but however the same has not been done. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Mr. Puttige R. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited the entire sum of money. Hence, the Recovery Officer or in his absence, the Presiding Officer is obliged to deliver possession of the mortgaged property. 3. Mr. Ravi Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that they have very little role to play in this matter, inasmuch as, the difference, if any, is between the auction purchaser and the Recovery Officer. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Angadi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 1 submits that the papers were being handed to Recovery Officer 2 and the same was withdrawn by the Presiding Officer and was entrusted to Recovery Officer 1 and the said Recovery Officer 1 has been repatriated to the parent department. Hence, the Recovery Officer is not in a position to deliver possession of the property. 5. I have perused the papers. Hence, the Recovery Officer is not in a position to deliver possession of the property. 5. I have perused the papers. Apparently, an interim application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Debt Recovery Tribunal was of the view that the Recovery Officer 2 will not be in a position to do justice to the party. Hence, he has withdrawn the matter from Recovery Officer 2 and has entrusted the same to Recovery Officer 1. In the given set of circumstances, if Recovery Officer 2 is not in a position to do justice and Recovery Officer 1 is not available, she having been repatriated, it was incumbent. upon the Presiding Officer himself to deal with the matter. An auction purchaser who has deposited a substantial sum cannot be made to run from pillar to post for possession of the property. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitions stand disposed of directing the Presiding Officer to deal with the matter in accordance with law. Compliance in four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.