JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

The challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to set aside the sale of the sole residential house conducted by the bank on 14.03.2023. The violation of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 2002' Act) is alleged on the ground that the property has been sold at a throw away price at Rs.1,53,12,000/- and the procedure prescribed has not been followed and the value of the property was Rs.3.25 crores.

2. A perusal of the Memo of Parties would go on to show that neither the auction purchaser is a party herein and, therefore, in the absence of the said person, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Even otherwise, there is efficacious and alternate remedy provided under Section 17 of the 2002 Act, which has been subject matter of debate time and again. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed in G.M. Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. & another v. Sri Ikbal & others , 2013 (10) SCC 83 . In the said case, the mortgaged property had been auctioned and the sale certificate had been quashed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court which was upheld by the Division Bench on the ground that the mandatory requirements of the rules were not followed. Resultantly, it was held that though the said rule is mandatory but there was a remedy provided under Section 17 of the 2002 Act which had been brushed aside and once there was alternative and efficacious remedy available, the High Court was not justified to allow the same to be circumvented. Resultantly, the appeals were allowed and the orders were set aside.

3. Similarly, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & another v. Mathew K.C. , 2018 AIR (SC) 676 , challenge before the Apex Court was to the interim order passed in a writ petition staying further proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act on the deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- within 2 months. The appeal against the same had been dismissed by the Division Bench. Resultantly, the Apex Court set aside the said orders by the following observations:

"17. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference.

18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Another, 1997 (6) SCC 450, observing :-

"32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsica