JUDGMENT

Dated this th e 8 th day of Apri l , 202 2 .

The petitioner seeks that ofÏcial respondents be directed to shift the attachment over the property involved in this case, over to the other properties owned by the defaulters, namely respondents 7 and 8.

2. Sri.Ravikrishnan – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, as is evident from Exts.P8, P9 and P11, the District Collector has already initiated action to verify whether there are other properties owned by respondents 7 and 8, on to which, the attachment in question can be shifted, so that his client’s property will be safe. He, therefore, prayed that necessary action pursuant to the afore exhibits be directed to be completed within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. Smt.K.Amminikutty – learned Senior Government Pleader, however, opposed the afore request of the petitioner very vehemently saying that no one, including the petitioner, can dictate to the 9th respondent – GST Department, as to which property is to be attached and which is to be released. She submitted that these are decisions which are taken by the competent Authority based on several criteria and that, in any event of the matter, this writ petition is not maintenable because the issue whether registration of the sale deed, over the property claimed by the petitioner, can be done on account of the attachment brought on by the 9th respondent is pending consideration before this Court in W.A.No.1096 of 2021, which is manifest from Ext.P7 interim order issued therein.

4. Pertinently, Sri.Saiju Hassan – learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank, supported the petitioner saying that since his client had obtained an equitable mortgage over the property in question; it is their case that they have a primary charge, over it, but conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that this issue is pending in W.A.No.1096 of 2021.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that petitioner had purchased the property in question from the 1st respondent Bank of Baroda, consequent to a sale conducted by them under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act); and that when the Sales Certificate was refused to be registered, they obtained a judgment in their favour, but which was, however, taken up in appeal and presently governed by Ext.P7 interim order. The learned Division Bench is now seized of the issue whether the Bank could have sold the property asserting first charge, or whether the order of attachment obtained on it by the 9th respondent has an overriding effect. Obviously, therefore, if the petitioner requires any further relief, they will have to approach the same Bench, rather than have filed this writ petition.

6. That said, if the 9th respondent is willing to accede to the request to the petitioner by shifting the attachment over to another property of respondents 7 and 8, obviously, it is their exclusive call; but cannot be directed to do so by this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This, the petitioner can certainly pursue with the 9th respondent appropriately, if they are so interested.

Resultantly, I close this writ petition without any further orders, however, leaving open all contentions of the rival parties to be impelled appropriately, either when W.A.No.1096 of 2021, is disposed of, or through such other Forums or remedies as may be available to them in law.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Raj/11.04.2022.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12435/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BANK OF BARODA TO THE PETITIONER ON 29.05.2020.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

09.12.2020 IN WPC NO.12678/2020.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (RR) TO THE MANAGER BANK OF BARODA DATED 25.11.2019.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF HE JUDGMENT DATED

15.12.2020 IN WPC NO.35082 OF 2019.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT D