A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as an adequate statutory remedy is available under Section 17 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the sale/transfer by the sale certificate dt. 19th February, 2019, to be void, inoperative and bad in law and to restore the possession of secured asset permitting him to deposit the amount which may be found due by the Bank before or at the time of initiating the proceedings under Section 13(8) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "Act of 2002") read with Rules 8 & 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short "the Rules of 2002").

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is lawful owner and is in possession of land under Patta No. 176 measuring 67.03 square yards, sitauted at Nayka Mohalla, Near Nageshwar Bagichi, Sikar. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had taken loan for construction of residential house from the respondent-Bank and the loan of Rs. 11,50,000/- was to be repaid in the 167 monthly installments and it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner would pay the monthly installment of Rs.13,814/-.

3. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had paid regular installment, however, when some of the installments were not paid, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 dt. 14th September, 2018, for amount of Rs. 12,38,494/- was issued to the petitioner and the said notice was not served on the petitioner and the petitioner was having no knowledge and as such the petitioner was precluded from filing reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002.

4. Counsel submitted that the petitioner first time had come to know that the respondent-Bank had dispossessed the petitioner on 25th February, 2019 and the petitioner found lock hanging on the outer door of the said property. When, the petitioner made enquiry, he came to know that the respondent-Bank had moved an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 dt. 20th December, 2018, alleging that there was outstanding amount of Rs. 12,34, 494/- to be paid by the petitioner and to be recovered from the secured assets.

5. Counsel submitted that the petitioner after obtaining copy of the order passed by the District Collector under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, approached the Revisional Court by filing a revision before the Session Judge, Sikar and the Session Judge, Sikar has refused to interfere in the matter by observing that for order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the Civil Court is not proper remedy.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to satisfy this Court with regard to availability of writ jurisdiction to the petitioner to assail the proceedings, which was initiated against the petitioner under the Act of 2002.

7. This Court also appraised learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 2 WLC(Raj) 421 has taken a view that the writ petition is not maintainable against the order of the Magistrate taking over the possession of the secured assets.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the said judgment, submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Counsel submitted that since sale certificate itself has illegally been issued and no notice has been given, the petitioner has rightly approached this Court.

9. Learned Senior Counsel-Mr. R.K. Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V. Noble Kumar and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 620 ; Hindon Forge Private Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 2 SCC 198 ; Vasu P. Shetty Vs. Hotel Vandana Palace and Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 660 ; Mardia Chemicals Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 311 .

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the said judgments, submitted that the Apex Court ha