The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, emphasizing the need for statutory compliance in auction processes.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 165 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed holding it not maintainable.

Facts:

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:

Paritran Medical College & Hospital is a unit of Paritran Trust. The said trust submitted a project report before the consortium respondent-Bank proposing the development of a Medical College and Hospital, thereafter, the bank has decided to extend consortium finance to the Trust in which PNB was the leading bank whereas UBI and Oriental Bank of Commerce were the members of the consortium.

It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that the project got delayed due to which the repayment of term loan which was to start from August, 2010 could not be started due to change in the MCI guidelines and therefore, the affiliation from MCI could not be obtained for commencing academic session 2010-11. The Trust approached the consortium banks for re-schedulement of the loan account and finally the leading bank agreed to sanction further term loan on 26.03.2010 but other two consortium banks refused to grant further sanction in the ratio decided in the original agreement and thus, the Punjab National Bank also cancelled additional loan sanctioned in terms of the letter dated 14.12.2010.

Thereafter, the consortium banks classified the account as NPA on different dates and as such, respondent-Bank initiated proceeding under SARFAESI Act by issuing notice dated 09.12.2011 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act pursuant to which the appellant-writ petitioner was directed to make payment of the entire outstanding dues within a period of 60 days from the date of notice failing which the defendant Bank will take all coercive measures for enforcement of security.

Thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner filed representation on 21.01.2012 but the same got rejected by the respondent-Banks and the respondent-Bank issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 09.02.2012.

Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant-writ petitioner filed writ petition before this Court challenging the action of the respondent-Bank, however, the same was dismissed in terms of the order dated 14.10.2014.

It is the also the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that in addition to the SARFAESI action, the consortium bank also filed Original Application No. 154 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 26.06.2015. After issuance of Certificate of Recovery in terms of Section 19(22) of RDDBFI Act, 1993, a recovery proceeding being R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 was initiated for recovery of the amount due, pursuant thereto, demand notice dated 13.07.2015 was issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Thereafter, while the matter was pending, the appellant-writ petitioner approached the consortium bank for settlement of the matter outside the court and also deposited Rs.50 lakhs for consideration of the proposal but the same was not found acceptable and thereafter, the Recovery Officer issued Warrant of Attachment of immovable property mortgaged with the consortium bank.

It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that without service of order of attachment, the proclamation at site was made on 17.05.2016 by the Recovery Inspector, the Recovery Officer vide order dated 26.05.2016 directed the immovable properties be sold through public auction and further directed to evaluate the attached property through an independent valuer registered under Income Tax Act and submit the valuation report.

Another order of attachment of movables properties was passed in terms of the order d