ORDER

16.11.2022 Heard Mr. I.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner has to approach this Court, as the learned Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati was absent when Securisation Application filed by the petitioner, vide S.A No. 110/2022 and the connected interlocutory application was listed before the DRT, Guwahati. Accordingly, the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner in the Securisation Application (S.A) No. 110/2022 was not taken up by the DRT, Guwahati on 28.10.2022.

2. The petitioner’s case is that he is the proprietor of M/S Sagolsem Cement House and that the petitioner applied for a loan from the State Bank of India (SBI). The petitioner was given a loan by creating equitable mortgage of land covered by C.S Dag No. 3081/3169 of Patta No. 371 (pt) (old), 471/684 (new) situated within Revenue Village No. 87 Uripok, Imphal West, Manipur, by deposit of Title Deeds. The petitioner’s account was termed as Non-Performing Asset (N.P.A) on 30.03.2021. The SBI issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, herein after referred to as the “SARFAESI Act, 2002” on 07.07.2021 and the symbolic possession of the mortgage property was taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 02.08.2022. Vacation Notice was sent by the respondent No. 1 on 06.08.2022 to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed Original Application (O.A) No. 261/2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, which was disposed of on 21.09.2022, on being uncontested by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner did not contest O.A No.

261/2021 as he was behind bars under Section 17/20 of the UP(P) Act and was granted bail only on 08.07.2022. He submits that public notice for the sale of property was given on 14.09.2022 and the reserved price was kept at R. 48,40,000/-. However, the sale could not take place on 26.10.2022, due to unavailability of bidders. The petitioner was thereafter served a notice, as intimation for taking physical possession of the property on 30.10.2022, vide letter dated 20.10.2022 issued by the respondent No. 1.

4. The petitioner thereafter approached DRT, Guwahati on 28.10.2022 vide S.A No. 110/2022. However, the case of the petitioner could not be taken up as the Presiding Officer was absent on the date of listing. The petitioner’s counsel also submits that the Bank has filed its reply to S.A No. 110/2022 on 31.10.2022 and the next date for filing rejoinder by the petitioner is scheduled on 09.12.2022. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application in S.A No. 110/2022, stating that he would pay the Bank his outstanding dues, so that his property could be de-sealed, the learned Presiding Officer was absent. As such, no order could be passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT. Therefore, he has approached this Court with a prayer to de-seal the property of the petitioner, after accepting the overdue loan amount payable by the petitioner.

5. The submissions made by the counsel for the writ petitioner shows that there is a pending case between the petitioner and the respondents before the DRT, Guwahati, i.e. S.A No. 110/2022. Though the petitioner’s counsel submits that an interim application was filed by the petitioner in S.A No. 110/2022, the petitioner’s counsel is unable to recall the number of the I.A filed in S.A No. 110/2022. As the dispute between the parties is already pending in the DRT, Guwahati, and as the next date fixed in S.A No. 110/2022 is 09.12.2022, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition just because the learned Presiding Officer was absent when the case was listed. Further, there should not be 2 parallel proceedings on the same issue, especially when a case regarding the same subject matter in issue is alre