Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. A doubt having arisen as to the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Indira Devi Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal 171 (2010) DLT 439 (DB), insofar as holding that an appeal under Section 17 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) can be filed not only in the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) having jurisdiction where the mortgaged property is situated but also in DRT having jurisdiction where the branch of the Bank/Financial Institution which has disbursed the loan is situated as well as in all DRTs which would have jurisdiction in terms of Section 19(1) of The Recoveries of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act) read with Rule 6 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (DRT Rules), this Full Bench was constituted.

2. This petition was filed impugning the order dated 7th June, 2012 of DRT-III, Delhi holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for the reason of, i) the petitioners being residents of Meerut; ii) the loan in their favour having been sanctioned by the branch at Meerut of the respondent ICICI Bank Limited and being re-payable at Meerut; and, iii) the mortgaged property being also situated at Meerut. It was further held that merely because the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act had been issued by the Jhandewalan, New Delhi Branch of the respondent Bank, would not vest the DRT Delhi with a jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at Delhi. Yet another reason given is, that even if action under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is to be taken by the Bank, the Bank will have to approach the concerned District Magistrate at Meerut for appointment of Receiver, for taking possession of the property.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners in the writ petition, that DRT, Delhi has jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the DRT Act read with Rule 6(d) of the DRT Rules, to entertain and decide such an appeal. Reliance is placed on State of Rajasthan Vs. M/s Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289 and Indira Devi Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal 171 (2010) DLT 439 (DB). It is further pleaded, that the Bank cannot sell the mortgaged property of the petitioners by violating the procedure laid down in SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed thereunder; that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are illegal and the Bank cannot take possession of or sell the property in pursuance thereto. It is yet further pleaded that since the challenge in the appeal preferred by the petitioners before DRT, Delhi is to the validity of the notices and which notices have been issued by the branch of the respondent Bank at Delhi within the jurisdiction of DRT, Delhi, DRT, Delhi would have jurisdiction. The petition contains numerous averments pointing out the defects in notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, but which it is not necessary to discuss.

4. Finding the question raised to be one purely of law, notwithstanding the availability of the remedy of appeal to Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), notice of the petition was issued to the respondent Bank. The counsel for the Bank appeared on 19th July, 2012 and though supporting the reasoning in the impugned order, contended that it is rather in the interest of the Bank also if the jurisdiction of DRT Delhi is permitted to be invoked; it was submitted that on the same parity, the Bank should also have the freedom to approach the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) at Delhi for assistance for taking possession of the mortgaged property, even if situated outside Delhi. Since the petitioner No.1 was appearing in person, Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae.

5. We have heard the petitioner No.1 appearing in person, the learne