5. Mr. Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after purchasing the subject-vehicle under the Agreement, the petitioner paid the EMIs in time without fail during the first year. But thereafter, due to sudden illness of his sister, the petitioner could not deposit the EMIs in time. It has been submitted that, as in the meantime, the petitioner also lost his job, the default in payment of the EMIs occurred for several months and as a result, the dues towards EMIs payable to the respondent Bank got accumulated.

6. On 26.09.2024, the petitioner was served with a Possession –cum- Sale Notice by the respondent no. 2 stating that by the Notice dated 10.07.2024, the petitioner was requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,059/- along with further interest. The Possession –cum– Sale Notice had further mentioned that as the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount in terms of the Notice dated 10.07.2024, a decision had been taken to take possession of the hypothecated subject-vehicle on any day from 11.10.2024 onwards and the Bank would sale the same to recover its dues through its authorized Recovery Agent/SADA, that is, the respondent no. 3. By the Possession –cum- Sale Notice, the petitioner was requested to ensure that he or his authorized representative should be present at the place to cooperate in peaceful handing over the hypothecated subject-vehicle to the Recovery Agent/SADA, appointed by the Bank. The Possession –cum- Sale Notice further mentioned that the petitioner would be at liberty to repay to the respondent Bank’s dues on any day before the date of sale and get back possession of the hypothecated subject-vehicle.

7. Mr. Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner did not receive the Notice dated 10.07.2024, referred to in the Possession –cum– Sale Notice dated 26.09.2024, and was surprised to receive the Possession –cum– Sale Notice. The petitioner was never given sufficient opportunity to reply to any demand notice. He has further contended that the Possession –cum– Sale Notice did not indicate about the persons who were authorized to take possession of the hypothecated subject-vehicle. He has further submitted that the petitioner approached the respondent no. 2 to apprise him about the difficulties the petitioner was facing at that time and requested the respondent no. 2 to allow him to pay the dues amount in six installments along with regular EMIs. The petitioner has also averred that after the Possession –cum– Sale Notice, the petitioner was receiving threatening calls repeatedly at odd hours at night from persons claiming to be Recovery Agent/SADA of the respondent Bank. Mr. Parashar has submitted that facing such situations, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court by the instant writ petition. To support his submissions, Mr. Parashar has referred to a number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which would be adverted in the later part of the order.

8. Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank authorities has submitted that after issuance of the Possession –cum– Sale Notice, the Bank, till date, has not taken any further steps in order to take possession of the hypothecated subject- vehicle. He has further submitted that in order to take possession of the hypothecated subject-vehicle, the respondent Bank authorities have appointed a Recovery Agent/SADA, that is, the respondent no. 3. He has further submitted that the prayer of the petitioner regarding re-scheduling of the EMIs cannot be accepted and with such a prayer, the writ petitioner could not have approached this Court. He has further submitted that the matter of taking possession of a hypothecated subject-vehicle is regulated by the Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] of the respondent Bank. He has, thus, submitted that in case of taking of possession of the hypothecated subject-vehicle, it would invariably follow the procedure laid down in t