ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents 1 and 2 have initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act, 2002) against properties of the petitioners. In those proceedings respondents 1 and 2 have published an e-auction notice dated 26.9.2021 scheduling auction of the immovable mortgaged properties on 25.10.2021 followed by a Corrigendum on 2.10.2021. The petitioners have challenged the entire action of the respondents 1 and 2 under the provisions of the Act, 2002 by preferring a Securitisation Application under section 17 of the Act. Along with the application the petitioners have also filed an application for interim relief/stay for restraining respondents 1 and 2 from taking any further coercive steps against them including auction of the immovable mortgaged properties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner’s Securitisation Application and application for interim relief/stay could not be taken up and heard by Debts Recovery Tribunal because Tribunal in Madhya Pradesh at present is not functional. The petitioners have Fundamental Right of seeking judicial review of an order which may have any adverse consequences against them. Since, the petitioners have already availed the remedy, till such time their application for interim relief/stay is decided, they may be protected.

3. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that the petitioners have not placed the entire facts before this Court. The auction has already taken place and the prospective purchaser has already deposited the requisite amount and has been confirmed in his favour. Hence, petitioners are not entitled for any relief at the present stage.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State has no objection and has further submitted that the Principal Seat of this Court has also been passing directions in various cases. One of such order has been passed on 17.11.2021 in Writ Petition No. 24384/2021 (Shri Dilip Sharma v. Union Bank) ensure that on account of non-availability of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal no prejudice is caused to either of the parties.

5. We are told that Debts Recovery Tribunal at present is not functional in Madhya Pradesh. The litigant cannot be left remediless. The petitioners have already filed Securitisation Application with a prayer for interim relief/order hence we deem it proper to dispose of the present petition with the following directions:-

“(i). Without prejudice to any of the rights of the parties, the petitioners are directed to deposit 20% of the amount due as on date with the respondent/bank within a period of thirty days from today, subject to further orders that may be passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. 50% of the aforesaid 20% amount be deposited within a period of first fortnight.

(ii). The Debts Recovery Tribunal is directed to take up the Securitisation Application as soon as it becomes functional for consideration of interim relief and take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

(iii) Till the prayer for interim relief in the said Securitisation Application is decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the sale proceedings be not finalized and no third party rights be created in respect of the mortgaged properties of the petitioners.

(iv). The petitioners are directed to communicate this order to the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur within ten working days from today.

(v). If there is excessive delay at any stage of the proceedings including in the appointment of Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur parties are free to approach this Court.

(vi) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.”

With the aforesaid, the petitio