Heard on admission.

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the

petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

(i)

This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

call for the entire record pertaining to impugned order

of the respondent bank.

(ii)

This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the

paper publication dated 23.5.2022 published by the

respondent No.3.

(iii)

This Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to

allow any other relief, which this Court Hon’ble Court

3

deemed just and proper in view of aforesaid

submissions.

(Emphasis Supplied)

Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the impugned auction notice dated 23.5.2022 (Annexure P/16) is

issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in

short, ‘Securitisation Act’) read with the relevant rules.

The learned counsel for the petitioner pursuant to a query urged

that petitioner doesn’t have remedy of approaching DRT by filing

proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the order

of previous round of litigation passed in W.P. No.7509/2013 (UCO Bank

vs. State of M.P.) decided on 28.4.2022 urged that the impugned auction

notice is issued with a view to circumvent this order of Division Bench

dated 28.4.2022. The another query of the Court was that although it

appears that the lis before this Court in W.P. No.7509/2013 was different

and not related to the auction of the property, the petitioner can still raise

this ground/point before the DRT by availing the alternative statutory

remedy. Apart from above in W.P. No.7509/2013, liberty was given by

this Court to the bank to take recourse of Securitisation Act. Shri Sharma,

4

learned counsel for the petitioner then placed reliance on another order of

this Court in W.P. No.12623/2007 decided on 19.6.2012. It is seen that

this Court order was also considered in the previous round on 28.4.2022

in W.P. No.7509/2013.

6.

The next contention of Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for

the petitioner is based on the language employed in Section 17 of the

Securitization Act. He submits that the petitioner, a purchaser of the

property, does not fall within the ambit of ‘any person’ as per Section

17(1) of the Securitization Act. In support of this contention, he placed

reliance on Standard Chartered Bank vs. Dharminder Bhohi (2013)

15 SCC 341.

7.

In nutshell, Shri Sharma submits that in view of the previous order

dated 28.4.2022 passed in W.P. No.7509/2013, this petition may be

entertained because DRT is not legally equipped and competent to pass

appropriate orders to take care of the relief claimed.

8.

The relief prayed for was carefully perused by this Court. A

conjoint reading of sub-section (2), (3) and (4) of Section 17 of the

Securitization Act shows that DRT is indeed competent to decide the

validity of action of secured creditor taken under Section 13(2) and (4) of

the Securitization Act.

5

9.

At this stage after consuming about 45 minutes, Shri Sharma,

learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition with the

liberty to approach the DRT. We were inclined to grant that innocuous

relief prayed by Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

However, Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the Bank raised

serious objection regarding withdrawal of this petition and on the liberty

sought for on the ground that petition suffers from serious suppression of

facts and in view of the conduct of petitioner, the petition deserves to be

dismissed with cost.

10.

Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the private treaty between the petitioner and the Bank was cancelled

on 14^th September, 2007 pursuant to which petitioner got the ownership

on the property in question. The petitioner filed S.A. No.200/2015 before

DRT assailing the cancellation of the said treaty. The sai