The availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 for aggrieved parties and the importance of following due procedure mandated under the Act, 2002 for realization of the loan amount.

1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent-Bank asking the petitioner to vacate the premises of the mortgaged property which has been auction-sold behind the back of the petitioner without complying the mandatory procedures as prescribed under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2002’) and the rules framed thereunder.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-Bank vide e-mail dated 09.08.2018 informed the petitioner about making payment of EMI of Rs.25,150/- against the education loan of Rs.20 Lacs taken by her which was to start from the month of September, 2018. The petitioner vide e-mail dated 05.02.2020, informed the respondent-Bank that her father expired and she herself had to bear the education expenses and thus she requested the respondent-Bank that she herself would pay the entire loan amount. She also requested the respondent-Bank to make further correspondences either on her e-mail or to her given address of Germany. She vide e-mail dated 07.12.2020, also intimated the respondent-Bank that she was not residing at her house situated at Ranchi (mortgaged property), however, despite her repeated attempts to contact the respondent-Bank, she failed to get any reply from its end. Surprisingly, the petitioner was served with the impugned letter dated 10.12.2020 at her Ranchi address informing about the auction-sale of her house (mortgaged property) purportedly following due process of law so as to realize the outstanding loan amount and other expenses.

4. Mr. P. S. A. S. Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank, on instruction, submits that the steps for realisation of the loan amount have been taken by the respondent-Bank after following due procedure mandated under the Act, 2002 as well as the rules framed thereunder. The impugned letter dated 10.12.2020 issued by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner and her sister clearly indicates that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued on 01.01.2019 and thereafter the symbolic possession of the secured assets under Section 13(4) was taken on 07.09.2019. It is further submitted that the secured assets/property in question has already been auction-sold on 24.11.2020 itself and the actual physical possession of the same has also been handed over to the auction purchaser.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the matter, particularly, the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank to the effect that the secured assets/property in question has already been auction-sold and its actual physical possession has been given to the auction-purchaser, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Otherwise also, the petitioner could have invoked alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi against the action of the respondent-Bank including issuance of impugned letter dated 10.12.2020.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, has held as under:

“42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders un