ORAL ORDER

1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Ritesh D. Patadia for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.

Nalini S. Lodha for the respondent-bank.

2.Learned advocate Mr. Patadia seeks permission to delete respondent no.2 - the Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I. Permission is granted. Respondent no.2 stands deleted as party-respondent.

3.Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Nalini Lodha waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1.

4.The controversy involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass and therefore, the petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties.

5.By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the said petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or mandamus and be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 1/6/2019 and hold that the petitioner may pleased be allowed to challenge securitization process of taking possession by the respondent bank.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo the properties in question.

(D) Costs of this petition are awarded.

(E) Any other relief, order or direction which may be just, fit, proper and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the petition.”

6.Brief facts of the case are as under :

6.1)The petitioner stood as a guarantor/mortgagor for the credit facility availed by M/s. Prashu Minerals Services Pvt. Ltd. from the respondent bank. The said company defaulted in payment of dues and therefore, the respondent-bank issued notice dated 1st November, 2008 under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(For short “the SARFAESI Act”) against the petitioner and other borrowers for recovery of Rs.34,42,00,478.83.

6.2) The respondent-bank thereafter took symbolic possession of the property of the petitioner on 20th March, 2019 and issued sale notice on 26th April, 2019.

6.3) The petitioner being aggrieved by such action of the bank preferred Securitization Application NO. 231/2019 along with delay condonation application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (DRT). It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner files Securitization Application before 45 days from the sale notice, the petitioner also preferred the delay condonation application.

6.4) The DRT by impugned order dated 1st June, 2019 partly dismissed the application for condonation of delay qua challenge to the initiation of Securitisation proceedings by the respondent –bank but on the ground that the petitioner failed to point out sufficient cause to explain the delay in approaching the DRT, but continued the proceedings for challenge to sale notice issued by the respondent-bank.

6.5) The DRT by order dated 3rd June, 2019, allowed the Securitization Application No.231/2019 and quashed and set aside the sale notice dated 26th April, 2019, however, permitted the bank to proceed further on the Demand Notice and possession notice already issued.

6.6) The respondent-bank thereafter, issued sale notice dated 20th June, 2019 qua the property in question.

6.7) Being aggrieved by such action of the respondent-bank and the impugned order passed by the DRT rejecting the delay condonation application, the petitioner preferred this petition on 28th June, 2019.

6.8) The petitioner thereafter, preferred Securitization Application No.304/2019 before the DRT on 24th July, 2019 challenging the sale notice dated 20th June, 2019 praying to quash and set aside the same.

6.9) The DRT by order dated 27th July, 2019 disposed of the Securitization Application No.304/2019 holding that the applicant is entitled to protection of his valuable righ