JUDGMENT

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Magistrate, Panipat, under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') and to the E-auction sale notice dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P-5).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had availed a loan facility from respondent No. 4 to the tune of Rs. 71,46,566/- and mortgaged their sole residential house. The petitioners were regular in payment of the loan installment from the year 2015 to October 2020 but suffered heavy losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as such, was unable to pay the due installment. The account of the petitioners was declared as a Non-Performing Asset on 24.03.2021 and a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued on 08.06.2021. Petitioners submitted their reply to the said demand notice on 06.07.2021 but without considering the said reply, respondent No. 4-financial institution issued a notice dated 21.03.2022 under Section 13 (4) of the Act (Annexure P-2).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the said notice was challenged by way of filing SA-106-2022 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') (Annexure P-3). After filing of the said SA, the petitioners came to know that respondent No. 1-District Magistrate, Panipat, passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-4) under Section 14 of the Act and respondent No. 4 issued a E-auction sale notice dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P-5). The petitioners filed IA-979-2022 before the Tribunal (Annexure P-6) challenging the said orders but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 10.08.2022 (Annexure P-7). The petitioners are ready to settle the matter and want to regularize the loan account even by way of One Time Settlement (OTS) agreement with the financial institution (respondent No. 4) and as such, the request letter (Annexure P- 8) was submitted. However, instead of deciding the said request letter, respondent No. 4 intend to take physical possession of the only residential house of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners had always been willing to pay the outstanding, though they have challenged the proceedings under the Securitisation Act upon various legal grounds.

5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions.

6. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 29.08.2022, whereby the following order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-

"Notice of motion for 06.02.2023.

Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.4 and filed his memorandum of appearance which is taken on record. He prays for time to file reply. May do so, on or before the next date of hearing with a copy in advance to the counsel opposite.

Subject to the petitioners making payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the 4th respondent within 03 days, and making a further payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- by 29.09.2022, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners by respondents No.1 to 4.

In default of compliance of this order, this order shall stands vacated."

7. Vide order dated 21.11.2022, counsel for the petitioners informed that payment of Rs. 11,00,000/- in pursuance of the order dated 29.08.2022 has been made. As per the order dated 29.11