JUDGMENT

Mr. DIPAK MISRA, J.

1 . Leave granted.

2 . The present appeal depicts a factual score where this Court is constrained to say that delay in disposal of the application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the appeal by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal have the effect potentiality of creating a corrosion in the economic spine of the country. It exposits a factual expose which is not only perplexing but usher in a sense of puzzlement which in the ultimate eventuate compels one to ask: How long can the financial institutions would suffer such procrastination How far the public interest be put to hazard because of small, and sometimes contrived individual interest To what extent the defaulters be given protection in the name of balancing the stringent powers vested on the banks and the statutory safeguards prescribed in favour of loanees Even assuming there are legal lapses and abuses, how ong the statutory tribunals take to put the controversy to rest being oblivious of the fact that the concept of flexibility is insegragably associated with valuation of any asset One is bound to give a wake up call and we so do by saying Tasmat Uttistha Kaunteya ; Awake, Arise, O Partha .

3 . The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 4694 of 2010.

4 . The facts which are essential to be stated are that the appellant-bank sanctioned home loan of Rs.12.00 lacs to the respondent No. 1 on 17.5.1999 payable in equal monthly installments and in lieu of that the borrower mortgaged the property which was purchased from the developer, the respondent No. 2 herein. Since the respondent No. 1 failed to pay the installments, the loan account was declared as non performing asset in terms of the NPA guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. On 28.12.2012 the appellant-bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act) to the respondent No. 1 directing him to pay the amount due as on 27.12.2002. Since the respondent No. 1 did not make any payment till 27.11.2004, the Tehsildar, Gurgaon took possession of the mortgaged property as per the order of the District Magistrate and handed over the same to the appellant-bank. On 10.3.2005 the appellant-bank in order to sell the said property published possession-cum-sale notice in the leading newspapers stating the terms and conditions of the public auction. In response to the said notice the respondent No. 3 submitted its bid form dated 10.3.2005 for purchasing the said property by way of auction. The said action was challenged by filing an application under Section 17(1) read with19 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The application was presented on 15.3.2005 before the DRT II, Delhi and the concerned Presiding Officer declined to pass any order and sought appropriate directions from the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) for transfer of the said application to some other DRT. As no order was passed by the DRAT, the matter was again placed before the DRT II on 25.10.2005 and on that day the DRT was informed that the bank had already taken over possession of the property in question and put the same into auction for sale. The borrower preferred a writ petition before the High Court on 17.5.2005 and the High Court directed the borrower to deposit certain amount with the bank and further directed status quo, as regards the property, to be maintained. Eventually, the High Court vide order dated 25.7.2005 only directed the DRT to dispose of the appeal within two months. While finally disposing of the writ petition the High Court opined that though no order was passed by the DRT as the Presiding Officer was awaiting orders from the appellate forum, the bank ought not have decided to sell the property to render the appeal of the borrower to become