Writ court directs SARFAESI auction sale registration despite delays, relegates possession and property disputes to civil court.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

The petitioner is the daughter of late Sri. Mohanan, who purchased a property from the 1st respondent bank in the auction sale conducted by the 3rd respondent, under the provision of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), 2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the fact that, the sale was conducted by the 3rd respondent in favour of the father of the petitioner and Ext.P1 sale certificate was issued, the sale was not registered in the name of the auction purchaser. The petitioner also has a case that the physical possession of the property was not delivered to the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser, the father of the petitioner, passed away on 16.07.2019, and the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the deceased.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows.

3. As mentioned above, as part of recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, initiated by the 3rd respondent in respect of the credit facility availed by one Mr. Jayaraj, the property of the said borrower was brought to sale. In the sale conducted, the father of the petitioner participated, and he happened to be the successful bidder. Based on the same, Ext.P1 sale certificate was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner on 17.09.2010. Subsequently, the auction purchaser claimed to have issued a lawyer notice dated 24.05.2011 to the respondent bank, pointing out that, despite the issuance of the sale certificate, the registration of the sale was not affected, and thus, calling upon the bank to execute necessary documents in this regard. Even though the said notice is not produced, the reply notice submitted by the respondent bank is produced as Ext.P2, wherein, the bank has denied the allegation. It is stated in Ext.P2 that after receipt of the lawyer notice, the bank contacted the auction purchaser on several occasions and requested him to visit the office at his convenience for a discussion, so that, the bank could clarify its position and also explore the possibility of providing feasible assistance that may be legally permissible. According to the petitioner, even though the auction purchaser approached the bank on several occasions, nothing materialised.

4. In the meantime, the auction purchaser also submitted a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, which resulted in Ext.P17 order passed by the Banking Ombudsman, by which the complaint was dismissed on the ground that, the auction purchaser did not have the locus standi to file the complaint against the bank as he was not a consumer of the bank. However, even though the complaint was rejected, the Banking Ombudsman forwarded the said complaint to the bank for considering the grievances highlighted by the auction purchaser. Acting upon the said complaint, Ext.P18 seems to have been issued by the respondent bank on 22.07.2011, to the auction purchaser, requiring him to contact the bank to sort out the issue at the earliest.

5. Thereafter, Ext.P3 was submitted by the auction purchaser under the Right to Information Act (in short, the “RTI Act”), seeking the details as to the actual reason for not registering the document, and the bank was also requested to intimate about the time within which the registration could be affected. The same was responded to by the bank, as per Ext.P4, stating that the information sought will not come under the definition of information under Section 2 (f) of the ‘RTI Act,' and therefore detai