Point of law: Loans by financial institutions are granted from public money generated at the taxpayer’s expense. Such loan does not become the property of the person taking the loan, but retains its character of public money given in a fiduciary capacity as entrustment by the public. Timely repayment also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need, by circulation of the money and cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same. The coordinate benches of this Court, while not entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have time and again relegated the parties concerned to avail of the alternative remedy.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing final hearing.

2. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

“9(A) Be pleased to issue writ, order or direction to direct the respondent – Banks to implement the terms of the One Time Settlement dated 25.09.2019 at annexed at Annexure-A5 collectively to this petition entered into between the Respondent Bank and the petitioner by extending the time for payment of the amount to be paid under the One Time Settlement on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

(B) Be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction to direct the respondent Bank to take all necessary steps for withdrawal of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the petitioner or to quash the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the petitioner in the interest of justice.

(C) Be pleased to stay all further proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the petitioner including all coercive steps against the petitioner pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition in the interest of justice.

(D) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further order, which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3. For the purpose of seeking the aforesaid reliefs from the Court, the background of facts which have been projected before the Court is that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Shareholders and Directors of the Company are citizens and as such, entitled to fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India. The petitioner – Company is engaged in the business of dying and printing of grey clothes. The factory was established in the year 1982 and running since then. For the purpose of running the business, financial assistance was obtained by the petitioner from the respondent – Bank in the form of Term Loan of Rs.1.7 crore which was subsequently settled and simultaneously, the petitioner was also having credit facility of 4.25 crores and the said facility was later on enhanced and the limits have been reviewed from time to time and vide sanctioned letter dated 27.02.2012, credit facility to the tune of Rs.16.63 crores was made available by the respondent – Bank to the petitioner.

3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of slump in the industry in the textiles and dying and printing of grey clothes, the respondent – Bank had restructured the finance facility of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner started paying regular installments as per the terms of the sanctioned letter. On account of default in the said arrangement, the respondent – Bank issued notice on 02.08.2017, under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which was replied by the petitioner on 28.09.2017 by way of its representation as well. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 13.10.2017, the respondent - Bank took symbolic possession of the premises of the petitioner and simultaneously, the respondent – Bank filed application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession by submitting application before the learned District Magistrate. To this, the petitioner had no knowledge, but the petitioner received the order dated 20.02.2018 of District Magistrate only on 01.03.2018. Simultaneously, the petitioner challenged the securitization action of the respondent – Bank before DRT-II, Ahmedabad by way of Securitization Appeal No. 61 of 2018 and vide order dated 14.03.2018, the DRT-II was pleased to grant interim relief to the petitioner. A copy of the said SA No.61 of 2018 is attached to the petition compilation. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no in