ORAL ORDER

1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad by which, the application of the petitioners seeking preponement of the hearing which is fixed on 02.03.2024, has been rejected.

2. Ms Devangi B. Solanki, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the proceedings and more particularly, the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2002”) was not issued in confirmity with the provisions of the Act of 2002 and therefore, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing Securitization Application no.15 of 2024. The application was listed for hearing and the learned Tribunal, on 16.01.2024, has issued the notice requiring the respondent bank to appear on 02.03.2024. It is next submitted that in the interregnum, that the sale notice for sale of immovable assets under the Act of 2002 read with the Rules, has been issued and the auction, is scheduled to take place on 13.02.2024. Hence, the petitioners have immediately filed an application seeking preponement of the hearing fixed on 02.03.2024. It is submitted that the Tribunal, has passed an order citing the reason that there are urgent matters and other cases already fixed on the board so also the fresh matters being fixed on day-to-day basis. Pendency, has been cited of more than 4,000 cases. It is submitted that if the application is not heard, the petitioners would be rendered remediless.

2.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of State of H.P. and Others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 wherein, it has been held and observed that Article 226 of the Constitution of India, confers on all the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs. However, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. It has been held that the Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted.

2.2 It is therefore submitted that in the present case, the petitioners were aggrieved inasmuch as, the notice has not been been issued in confirmity with the provisions of the Act of 2002. It is therefore urged that let the main application of the petitioners be heard at the earliest so that at least, the petitioners are not left without any remedy rendering the whole Securitization Application infructuous.

3. On the other hand, Mr Neeraj Vasu, learned advocate has submitted that the request made by the petitioners before the Tribunal was only limited i.e. relief to shift their belongings. If at all the petitioners were desirous of having any relief, the petitioners could have insisted for hearing of the stay application which has not been done. It is submitted that considering huge outstanding amount of Rs.9 crores and more, that the auction has been conducted. If at all, the petitioners are desirous of taking recourse, petitioners can participate in the auction proceedings; however, petitioners have chosen not to do so. Also, the petitioners have not shown their willingness to deposit the amount which otherwise is outstanding from the four loan accounts of the bank. It is submitted that even otherwise, against the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have the remedy of approaching the appellate tribunal by filing an appeal. The petitioners, are not taking recourse of the said remedy because petitioners would like to avoid the payment of 50% amount which is the prerequisite for ente