ORDER :

1. As both the writ petitions are interconnected and common aspects are arisen for consideration, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. Writ Petition (C) No. 48 of 2021 has been preferred by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (henceforth ‘the DRT’) Jabalpur sitting at Cuttack in S.A. No. 134 of 2016, whereby the DRT has dismissed the SA/application moved by the Petitioner.

3. Writ Petition (C) No. 2686 of 2022 has been preferred by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2022 passed by the DRT, Jabalpur in S.A. No. 133 of 2016, whereby the SA/application moved by the Petitioner has been dismissed by the DRT.

4. In both the cases, the Petitioner had availed a loan facility from the Respondent/Bank of Baroda through cash credit and term loan. However, the Petitioner failed to repay the loan within the due time. Both the accounts of the Petitioner in both the cases were classified as Non Performing Asset (henceforth ‘the NPA’). In both the loan cases, property has been mortgaged by the Petitioner for getting the loan facility. As both the accounts of the Petitioner were classified as NPA, the Respondent/Bank issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth ‘the Act of 2002’) and the Petitioner was asked to pay the remaining dues along with the applicable interest. The Petitioner did not avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 13(3) of the Act of 2002 and did not make any representation before the Bank authorities. After the Petitioner’s failure to deposit the amount due with the Respondent/Bank, the Bank issued a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 and took possession of the secured assets of the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the DRT in both the cases. Meanwhile, the Respondent/Bank issued auction notice in pursuance of Rules 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (henceforth ‘the Rules of 2002’). Valuation report from approved valuer is also obtained in pursuance of Rule 8(5) of the Rules of 2002. Residential building of the Petitioner was auctioned for Rs.13.17 Lakhs against the reserve price of Rs.12.87 Lakhs. Another secured assets land, factory and building of the Petitioner were also auctioned for Rs.69.35 Lakhs. Both the SAs/applications preferred by the Petitioner have been dismissed by the DRT vide the aforementioned impugned orders. Hence, these writ petitions by the Petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 2 and 3 and Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent 6 submitted that both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone. It was submitted that as the Petitioner has alternative remedy available under Section 18 of the Act of 2002 against the orders passed by the DRT, these writ petitions moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable. It was further submitted that the DRT after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in both the cases has passed the reasoned orders and, therefore also, these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable.

6. Opposing the above arguments advanced on behalf of Respondents 2, 3 and 6, Petitioner Dinesh Chandra Tiwari in person in both the writ petitions submitted that the DRT has passed the orders without caring the written submission filed by him and has illegally dismissed the SAs/applications moved by him. As the opportunity of hearing has not been provided to him and arbitrary orders have been passed, the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are maintainable. Reliance has been placed by him on a judgment passed by the Madras High Court in The District Collector, Chennai vs