JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.

This Writ Application has been filed seeking quashing of the auction notice issued by the UCO Bank, Zonal Office at Begusarai (hereafter referred to as 'respondent-Bank'), published in daily Hindi Newspaper "Hindustan".

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the auction notice published on 01.09.2019 is in complete contravention of the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act, 2002' or 'Act of 2002'). It is contended that earlier the respondent-Bank had filed Original Application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended upto date) giving rise to O.A. No. 810/2016. After filing of the said Original Application, the loan account had been upgraded and it was declared out of Non-Performing Asset (NPA) category, therefore the respondent-Bank withdrew O.A. No. 810/2016.

3. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Bank cannot take possession of the two Air Condition Buses of the petitioners forcibly and without following the established procedure of law.

4. By filing I.A. No. 01/2019, the petitioner has sought to modify his prayer whereunder he is now challenging the order dated 09.09.2019 auctioning the buses by the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Begusarai in Rs. 6.90 Lakhs and Rs. 7.35 Lakhs. It is submitted that this writ application was presented in this court on 03.09.2019 after serving copies of the writ application upon learned counsel for the respondent-Bank on 03.09.2019, therefore during pendency of the writ application the respondent-Bank and it's authorities should not have acted in haste and the auction of the buses within few days from the date of their taking over forcible possession is wholly wrong, unjust and improper. It is also submitted that any action taken by the Bank during pendency of the Writ Application automatically becomes subject to result of the case, hence to challenge such action the persons in whose favour sale has been made are not necessary parties as they take the risk of entering into a deal which is under challenge before a Court of Law.

5. It is further contention of the petitioner that against the financed amount of Rs. 70 Lakhs, the petitioner has paid Rs. 1.1 Crore till January, 2019 and under the agreement the entire loan has to be repaid with interest by July, 2020, therefore at this stage, the respondent-Bank could not have proceeded to auction sale the buses. In this connection, learned counsel has also pointed out Annexure 4' attached with the I.A. No. 01/2019 to show that after service of copies of the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner had communicated to the Bank on 07.09.2019 i.e. well before the auction of the buses that for the present the buses, should not be auctioned, but it appears that the respondent-Bank was in hurry to sell the buses.

6. In course of hearing as the argument progressed, this court vide it's order dated 15.10.2019 called upon the respondent-Bank to say as to whether the impugned action has been taken by the Bank in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and in this regard an appropriate affidavit was called for. An interim order of status quo was also granted and it is an admitted position that the possession of buses were not given to the auction-purchasers.

7. In their counter affidavit the respondent-Bank has taken a plea that since the petitioner had failed to pay the installments towards repayment of loan and the buses were lying under hypothecation with the Bank as security for repayment of the loan amount, in terms of the agreement annexed as Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit, the respondent-Bank proceeded to seize the vehicles and in this regard the Bank has followed its' policy for seizure and disposal of vehicles of defaulter borrowers and the same exhaustively deals with the