ORDER :

1. Instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, lays challenge to order dated 13.05.2021 (Annexure P-6), whereby Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short ‘DRAT’) erroneously without there being any jurisdiction entertained the misc. Application No.15 of 2021, having been filed by respondents No.2 and 3 (Annexure P-3), praying therein for initiation of appropriate action against the erring bank officials on account of their having fraudulently credited the amount in the account of auction purchaser

2. On 18.05.2021, Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice to the respondents, returnable for 5th July, 2021, admitted the petition for hearing and stayed the proceedings before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in Misc. Application No.15 of 2021 (Annexure P-6).

3. On 28.07.2021, Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and stated that he has been appointed as legal aid counsel on behalf of respondent No.2, whereas despite service, respondent No.3 did not come present, but yet this Court with a view to afford due opportunity of being heard to respondents No.2 and 3, adjourned the matter for today’s date, specifically requesting Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate to ensure presence of respondents No.2 and 3 in the Court on the next date of hearing. However, fact remains that despite notice respondents No.2 and 3 have not come present. Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel representing respondents No.2 and 3 informs this Court that immediately after passing of order dated 9.8.2021, he informed both the respondents by way of a letter sent through speed post, but they have not responded and as such, this Court has no option, but to decide the case at hand on the basis of the material already available on record.

4. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondents No.2 and 3 approached this Court by way of CWP No.4424 of 2019, seeking therein direction to State Government to investigate the case FIR No.143 of 2017 against the petitioner-bank or its employees and file the challan after the investigation. Besides above, respondents No.2 and 3 also sought direction to petitioner-bank to accept the case of respondents No.2 and 3 under One Time Settlement (OTS) of the outstanding amount.

5. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 came to be resisted on behalf of petitioner-bank on the ground that matter with regard to same issue is pending before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner-bank also informed Division Bench of this Court that as per notice dated 18.01.2021 demand was raised by the petitioner-Bank to pay Rs.10,38,100/-. Responding to aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-bank, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 stated before the Division Bench of this Court that respondent No.3 is ready and willing to pay the entire amount within the stipulated period and to show his bona-fide he also handed over demand draft of Rs.1,03,810/-, which is 10% of the total amount as per notice dated 18.01.2021.

6. Order dated 7.4.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4424 of 2019, reveals that learned counsel representing the petitioner-bank submitted before the Division Bench that in case entire amount is deposited within a period of 10 days, notice issued in reference to the loan account shall be withdrawn. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also submitted before the Division Bench of this Court that he has deposited Rs.5, 75,000/- in the account of one Ashwani Kumar, who according to him, is a third party. Taking note of pleadings as well as submissions adduced on record by the respective parties, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the aforesaid petition, directing respondent No.3 to deposit entire loan amount on or before 24th April, 2021. Though, the ‘OTS’ scheme had ended on 31st March, 2021, but Division Bench of this Court directed the petitioner-bank to extend th