JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The grievance raised by the petitioner(s) in the present writ petition is that, as a consequence of initiation of the proceedings under Section 13 of the SecuritisationF and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be called as "the SARFAESI Act, 2002") an action under Section 13(4) of the Act, of taking over of the possession over the mortgaged property in question, has already been undertaken by the respondents, though petitioner in his petition alleges that the possession, has been taken forcefully, when he was not available over the property in question and his family members, who were residing alone there in the premises, were forcefully dispossessed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that during the pendency of the proceedings before the D.R.T, which was initiated by the petitioners pursuant to the earlier directions, which was issued by this Court, in fact, he had drawn proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in compliance of the judgement dated 29.01.2021, which was rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 224 of 2021, in which the petitioners contend that he has filed an application before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which was numbered as IA No. 142 of 2021, for urgent hearing of the matter and, also an Application Number No. 141 of 2021. In the said application, which were filed by the petitioner, in the proceedings of SA No. 16 of 2021, Smt. Rakhi Bera & another Vs. District Magistrate Haridwar and others, the learned DRT, has passed an order dated 18.02.2021, whereby a direction was given which was subject to the condition that petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakh, the proposal for restoration of possession of one room (temporarily) would be considered by the Competent Authority.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that, in compliance of the said directions given by the DRT vide its order dated 18.02.2021, he had deposited the amount of Rs. 4.00 lakh, but still the possession of one room, as was directed therein by the said order dated 18.02.2021, has not yet been complied with. He further submits that SA No. 16 of 2021, is still pending consideration and no orders has been passed on it, and its pendency is prejudicial to his interest, hence, he has prayed for the following reliefs in the present writ petition, which are referred to hereunder:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent no. 1 toto take necessary steps to make compliance of the order 18.02.2021 passed by the DRT Dehradun.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun to decide the S.A. No. 16.2.2021, Smt. Rakhi Bera and another Vs. District Magistrate, Haridwar & others, expeditiously as possible, with in a period stipulated framed by this Hon'ble court.

iii) issue any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioners.

iv) cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

4. The petitioners' case has also been that on account of non-compliance of the order dated 18.02.2021, he has also filed an application before the DRT, alleging contempt of the order dated 18.02.2021.

5. When the matter was taken up today, Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, the learned Addl. CSC for the State/respondent No. 1, has raised an objection from the view point that this writ petition for a writ of mandamus would not be maintainable in view of sub Section (6) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which is quoted hereunder:-

"(6) If the application is not disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as specified in sub-section (5), any party to the application may make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal for expedi