ORDER :

The present case is taken up today through Video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short “the DRT”), Ranchi in R.P No. 502 of 2016 whereby time was allowed to the respondent-Bank to file reply to the petitioners’ objection petition and orders have been passed point wise (total five points) whereby the immovable property attached vide order dated 27.03.2017 has been ordered to be sold through public auction including the order for settling a sale proclamation with respect to movable and immovable properties of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent-State to comply the undertaking given by it to the respondent-Bank with respect to payment of its contribution of 75% of loan amount under the Scheme namely CGTMSE (Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme For Micro and Small Enterprises) (hereinafter to be referred as “the said Scheme”) which has not been fulfilled by the respondent-State.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred I.A No. 1665 of 2021 for staying sale notice dated 27.02.2021 issued by the Canara Bank, Adityapur II Branch, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan which, according to the petitioners, was dropped by the Bank on their gate of the work place on 13.03.2021.

4. The factual background of the case is that the petitioners had taken a term loan of Rs.20,00,000/- under the said Scheme vide sanction letter dated 10.12.2012 and executed various loan and security documents with the respondent no.4. The petitioners defaulted in making payment of dues to the respondent-Bank on agreed terms and as such the respondent no.4 classified the petitioners’ account as NPA on 30.09.2013 and sent legal notice to the petitioners calling upon them to pay the outstanding dues failing which legal action was to be taken against them. When the petitioner failed to make the payment, the respondent no. 4 issued notice dated 13.06.2014 calling upon the petitioners to make payment of outstanding dues under One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme followed by another notice dated 14.06.2014 issued by the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Adityapur Branch, Jamshedpur under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [in short to be referred as “the Act, 2002”] directing the petitioners to discharge their liabilities within a period of 60 days from the date of issuance of notice. However, the petitioners instead of discharging the outstanding dues filed an application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 being S.A No. 20 of 2015 before the DRT, Ranchi against the respondent-Bank which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 02.07.2015. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank preferred O.A No. 169 of 2016 for recovery of the outstanding dues of Rs.25,23,492.36/- which proceeded ex-parte and vide order dated 16.08.2016, decree was made in favour of respondent-Bank for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,23,492.36/- along with pendent lite and future interest @10% per annum with monthly rests from 10.03.2016 till realization of the entire claim besides cost of Rs.28,000/-. Consequently, a recovery certificate dated 16.08.2016 was issued by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ranchi for recovery of decretal amount against the petitioners in terms with Section 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short “the Act, 1993”). The respondent-Bank initiated recovery proceedings before the Recovery Officer, DRT Ranchi being R.P No. 502 of 2016 and despite issuance of notice to the petitioners, when they failed to appear and comply the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the said Recovery Officer whereby the certificate debtors (the petitioners) were issued notice of demand with direction to make payment of the certificate amount, the Recovery Officer, vide order dated 27.03.2017, pas