JUDGMENT K. Kalyanasundaram, J. 1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in M.A.(SR) No.3 of 2012, in and by which, the respondent bank was permitted to collect the recovery charges from the petitioner. 2. One Mr.Saikumar availed loan facilities from the respondent bank and for securing the loan amount, the petitioner's property was mortgaged. Due to the default made by the borrower, the respondent bank had initiated recovery proceedings, by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and issued a sale-cum-auction notice, dated 16.6.2011. The petitioner filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, in S.A.No.239 of 2011. The Tribunal, by order dated 2.12.2011, disposed of the application holding that the SARFAESI application itself has become infructuous, in view of the fact that the sale did not take place on the date fixed for sale of the property. The Tribunal further directed the bank not to collect the recovery charges from the petitioner. As against the said order, the respondent bank filed M.A.(SA).No.3 of 2012, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, contending that the bank is entitled to collect the recovery charges, as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the bank and allowed the appeal. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondent bank has filed its counter stating that the bank has not debited the Recovery Agent's charges from the loan account of the petitioner and in the statement of accounts given to the petitioner, no charges were debited from his loan account; that an outstanding loan liability of Rs.46,16,655/- is due from the petitioner, which does not include the Recovery Agent's charges and the respondent bank undertakes that they will not include the Recovery Agent's charges in the proposed sale-cum-auction notice. 4. Heard Mr.R.Sundarakamesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.L.Ganesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, is contrary to law and the SARFAESI Act does not authorise the respondent bank to engage any Recovery Agent and as such, the bank is not entitled to claim the Recovery Agent's charges from the petitioner. 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, is contrary to law and the SARFAESI Act does not authorise the respondent bank to engage any Recovery Agent and as such, the bank is not entitled to claim the Recovery Agent's charges from the petitioner. 6. In view of the specific undertaking given by the respondent bank, in the counter affidavit, stating that they have not deducted the Recovery Agent's charges, in the loan account of the petitioner and that they will not include the Recovery Agent's charges in the proposed sale-cum-auction notice, we are of the view that no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.