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