By the Court.—Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner-auction purchaser, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6-Punjab National Bank and Sri Kanhaiya Lal, the borrower who has appeared in person and is arrayed as respondent No. 8 (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) representing respondent No. 7.

2. Sri Kanhaiya Lal states that he is representing the other private respondents as next friends inasmuch as he appearing in person, should be allowed to conduct his own case as he can no longer afford a lawyer. We permit him to proceed.

3. Sri Kanhaiya Lal has taken a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition relying on the judgment of this Court in Writ-C No. 6888 of 2015 - Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. District Magistrate and 4 Others, decided on 3rd October, 2017, to contend that the petitioner cannot seek possession of the premises as it is a purely contractual matter between the Bank and the petitioner. He therefore, submits that no mandamus can be issued as prayed for and therefore the writ petition does not deserve to be entertained or any direction issued.

4. The case has a chequred history and it appears that respondent No. 8 took a loan from the respondent - Punjab National Bank for running a carpet business. There appears to be a default in repayment of loan and consequently the Bank invoked the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2002”), and issued a notice under Section 13(2) of Act, 2002 on 5.2.2013 followed by a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002.

5. The contesting respondent appears to have moved an application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 being Application No. 30 of 2010, which is stated to have been dismissed in default on 17.10.2011, where upon a notice was published by the Bank on 9th October, 2012. The respondent appears to have questioned the same through Securitisation Application No. 337 of 2012 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the D.R.T.”) wherein an interim order was passed calling upon the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- and a conditional order was passed. According to the petitioner, respondent did not comply with the order where after the Bank sent a notice to the respondent for settlement, which proposal was contained in the letter dated 7.11.2012. Not only this another demand was made for getting the matter resolved, through the Lok Adalat on 11th October, 2013, which also did not yield any result. The Bank proceeded to publish another notice for auction on 13th November, 2013 and the auction was held on 16.12.2013 in which the petitioner is stated to have purchased the property.

6. The respondent again approached the D.R.T. by moving Securitisation Application No. 342 of 2013, which was dismissed on 20th December, 2013. The sale certificate is stated to have been issued by the Bank in favour of the petitioner on 31.12.2013.

7. The respondent appears to have filed Writ Petition No. 519 of 2014 in which orders were passed on 7th November, 2014, but the petition was subsequently dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy on 25.5.2015, allowing the respondent to approach the concerned forum in terms of the Act, 2002, which is an appeal in terms of Section 18 of the Act, 2002.

8. On 2nd June, 2015, the petitioner is stated to have obtained a sale-deed, executed by the Bank and the respondent appears to have filed an appeal after dismissal of the writ petition being Appeal No. 113 of 2015, in which an interim order of status quo was passed on 22nd June, 2015. The status quo order which was continued thereafter is extracted herein below :

“Order dated 22.6.2015

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has deposited 50% pre deposit amount as required under Section 18 of the Securitization