Senior citizens' circumstances considered but did not justify granting discretionary relief under Article 226.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to recover the amounts due from the petitioners on account of credit facilities availed by their son after mortgaging the property owned by the 1^st petitioner.

2. When this matter came up for consideration on

03.03.2026, this Court passed the following order:

“Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am clear in my mind that the writ petition is not maintainable as the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing a securitization application under Section 17 of the said Act. However, purely taking into consideration of the fact that the 1^st petitioner is aged 86 and the 2^nd petitioner is aged 77 and taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners will settle the entire liability within a period of two months, there will be an interim order directing, on the petitioners remitting a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards the loan liability on or before 30-03-2026, the taking of physical possession shall be deferred till 31-03-2026.”

Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent bank that no amount has been remitted by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated 03.03.2026.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed an application for extension of time. It is further submitted that, since the petitioners are senior citizens, some further time may be granted to pay the amounts directed to be paid through the order dated 03.03.2026.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out any case for the grant of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. It is evident from the interim order dated 03.03.2026 that, though it was observed that the remedy of the petitioners would be to challenge the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the interim order was granted only as a matter of indulgence and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are senior citizens. However, since the petitioners have not proved bona fides, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to discretionary relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.