Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Tarun Verma appearing for the Allahabad Bank and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 3rd August, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 directing for providing police help for taking possession of the mortgaged assets. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from their residential house situate at Plot No. 78/1, Bhajan Ka Pura, Mirzapur.

3. Brief facts of the case as emerge from pleadings in the writ petition, are; petitioners took a housing loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- from Allahabad Bank on 8th July, 2004. The security interest was credited on the Plot No. 78/1. Default was committed by the petitioners in repayment of loan, consequently the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Act). A notice dated 24th February, 2009 under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act was issued demanding repayment of the amount. The petitioners failed to make payment within the time allowed in the notice, hence the Bank invoked its power under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act by issuing possession notice dated 9th July, 2009. The Bank further issued a notice for sale of the mortgaged assets dated 4th May, 2011 which was published on 6th May, 2011 in the newspaper inviting tenders for sale of the mortgaged assets and 8th June, 2011 was fixed for auction. The sale was confirmed and sale certificate dated 29th June, 2011 was issued. An application under Section 14 of the 2002 Act was filed by the Bank dated 29th July, 2011 before the District Magistrate on which an order was passed on 3rd August, 2011 for taking possession by police force. The petitioners filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 36888 of 2011 in this Court challenging the action of the Bank taken under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act which writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. The petitioners thereafter on 8th July, 2011 filed an application under Section 17 of the 2002 Act which was registered as S.A. No. 181 of 2011. The registered deed dated 14th July, 2011 was also executed by the Bank in favour of auction purchaser after issuance of sale certificate dated 29th June, 2011. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the 2002 Act was dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide its order dated 31st October, 2012. The Debt Recovery Tribunal by another order of the dated 31.10.2012 granted 7 days time to the petitioners to approach the appellate Tribunal and a protection of 7 days from dispossession was granted. The petitioners thereafter instead of filing an appeal before the appellate Tribunal, has come up to this Court by filing this writ petition on 3rd November, 2012.

4. Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Bank is not legally entitled to take physical possession of the properties after executing the registered sale-deed in favour of the auction purchaser. The Bank cannot maintain an application under Section 14 of the Act before the District Magistrate seeking police assistance to take possession of the secured assets after executing the registered sale-deed in favour of auction purchaser. He further submits that after executing the registered sale-deed by delivering the possession of the property the Bank complete the sale or transfer under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as under Rule 9(9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the implied contract to give possession will operate from Section 55