ORDER :

1. Present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order and direction quashing and setting aside and impugned order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate Panchmahal in SARFAESI/Case No. 25 of 2020 (Annexure-A).

(B) During pendency and final hearing this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of impugned order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate Panchmahal.

(C)...............

(D)...............”

2. For essentially challenging the decision dated 21.1.2021 passed by the respondent Collector and District Magistrate, Panchmahal, the petitioners have raised three fold submissions at the outset. Aggrieved by the order, learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Asthavadi has submitted that the order in question is passed without granting any opportunity to the petitioners. The said order is a non-speaking order and has further asserted that no dues are outstanding, still the bank submitted an application, upon which, an order came to be passed. It has further been asserted that there is no alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners and as such, the petitioners have brought this petition by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Before deciding the present petition, few following facts are required to be considered:

3.1. The present petitioners have been extended with Credit facilities in the form of cash credit and term loan. The facilities were having security cover, as stated in the bank’s application reflecting on page 61 of the petition compilation and on Page 62, other terms and conditions have been attached in the form of Annexure-II. On account of some circumstances which are not relevant to the present controversy, it appears that the bank was forced to initiate proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’ for short), by serving a notice on 10.2.2020, indicating the outstanding loan, as indicated on Page 88. The said notice having been received by the petitioners, was replied, vide communication dated 13.2.2020 by the petitioners and thereafter, some exchange of correspondences between the bank and the petitioners took place, but issue has not been resolved. It appears that symbolic possession was taken of the mortgaged property in the month of June 2020. It further appears that later on, the respondent bank was constrained to prefer an application under Section 14 of the Act along with all detailed particulars and necessary procedure having been observed, as required under Section 14 of the Act. This step initiated by the bank was before learned Collector and District Magistrate, Panchmahal, which was registered as SARFAESI Case No. 25 of 2020, wherein it is clearly indicated on page 102 of the petition compilation that the authority has issued notice granting an opportunity to the parties to the proceedings. In the said communication about intimation of date of hearing, the present petitioners were made a party to the said application and the process appears to have been served upon the petitioners.

3.2. It further appears from the record that pursuant to the notice having been received, the petitioners have submitted their objection/reply to the said notice on 22.1.2021, in which the petitioners themselves have clearly indicated in last portion that they have submitted Original Application No. 306 of 2020 before Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad on 19.3.2020 and thereby requested to keep the proceedings in abeyance till outcome of the said Original Application. So, it transpires from the record that the petitioners are clearly aware about all the steps which are taken by the bank from beginn