ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“(1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions and the impugned order dated 09.08.2023, passed by the Assistant General Manager, Bank of India, Main Branch Raipur, may kindly be set-aside and the respondent Bank may kindly be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner as per the sale confirmation letter and the Bank may further be directed to accept the remaining amount and the demand draft dated 07.08.2023 being No.628243 and sale certificate may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.

(2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in alternative the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent Bank to return the amount deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.9,14,250/- with interest.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings initiated by the respondent bank for auctioning mortgaged property. Petitioner was declared 'highest bidder' in the auction proceeding and therefore, on the next date of sale confirmation, he deposited 25% of the amount of sale consideration. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that possession of the property put to auction by respondents was not obtained under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002') and proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is pending before the District Magistrate concerned. As such, on the date of auction, respondents were not in actual physical possession of the property. Petitioner approached the bank authorities to know about status of property, whereupon he was directed to approach the authority who is looking after the proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Application filed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 was decided only on 20.07.2023. After issuance of sale confirmation certificate, petitioner approached the bank authorities for depositing balance 75% amount, but the petitioner was informed that said amount cannot be accepted from him as he failed to deposit the same within the prescribed period of 15 days. Petitioner was also informed that 25% amount deposited by him stood forfeited.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submits that writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of availability of efficacious alternate remedy to petitioner. He contended that for the grievances arising out of proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 2002, the borrower or any other person is having efficacious alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Agrawal Tracom Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank & ors, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that indisputably, on the date of auction, the proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 was pending before the District Magistrate which prima facie shows that respondents were not in actual possession of property on the date of auction, and therefore, they cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of their own faults or enrich themselves by forfeiting the amount already deposited by petitioner. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Shariq v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 392.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in record of writ petition.

6. Main objection raised by learned counsel for respondents apart from merits of case, is with regard to maintainability of writ petition in view of specific provisions under Section 17 of the Act of 2002,