JUDGMENT :

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Manish Kishore, learned counsel for the Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’).

3. On 03.12.2020, the Court had recorded the following order:

“The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Manish Kishore, learned counsel for the Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’), have assisted the Court.

3. The petitioners have moved the Court for the following reliefs:

“(I)For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the possession notice dated 11.06.2020 issued under the signature of the Authorized Officer, Respondent no.3 whereby and where under the Respondent no.3 had taken the possession of property since 11th day of June of the year 2020 interalia on the ground that the petitioners have failed to re-pay the installment of term loan amount since December’ 2019 and onwards.

(II) For issuance of an appropriate in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondent Bank to not take possession of the property of the petitioners on the ground that the property in question is only the residential house of the petitioners as also due to losses in business because of flood as well as locked down in the country due to pandemic COVID, 2019, the petitioners could not make payment of installment of term loan since December, 2019 and onwards coupled with the facts that the petitioners are ready to up-to-date the overdue amount till the end of December, 2020, if the situation will become normal.

(III) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent Bank to not charge the extra amount or interest over the installment amount of term loan which has not been deposited by the petitioners due to Pandemic COVID, 2019 coupled with the facts of locked down in the country since 22nd March, 2020.

(IV) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions for which the writ petitioners would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The matter has been taken up out of turn on motion moved by learned counsel for the petitioners yesterday pointing out that for recovery of outstanding dues against the petitioners, the Bank is going to auction-purchase their residential house on 5th December, 2020, i.e., day after tomorrow. As the Bank had not been served notice, learned counsel undertook to do the same yesterday itself and file supplementary affidavit. Though in the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the respondent no.3 refused to accept the notice, but it has also been stated that he has sent the same through e-mail to the Bank.

5. Mr. Manish Kishore, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that there was some communication gap and the Branch Manager had asked the petitioners to send copy of the writ petition on the e-mail of the Bank, which has been done and he has received the same also through the Branch and appearing today.

6. Even yesterday and today also at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners took a categorical stand that they shall be paying the up-to-date dues to the Bank, in terms of their loan account, latest by 31st of December, 2020, and the Court may grant them protection from their residential house being auctioned.

7. Learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the Bank is agreeable to the same. However, he further prayed that the Court may put conditions on the petitioners so that they do not default in future. Learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the Court may also consider the fact that one bid has been received in the matter and if the petitioners default, the whole process will have to be undertaken again.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Court directs that the B