##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 979/2026

Mentor Home Loans India Ltd, Reg. Office At Mentor House, Govind Marg, Sethi Colony, Jaipur-302021 Through The Authorized Officer Shri Satish Kumar Gautam S/o Mr. Ghanshyam Gauttam, Aged About 36 Years, Residence

Vrindavan Vihar, Khania, Agra Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan

2. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, (East), Jaipur, Rajasthan

3. Station House Officer, Police Station-Kho Nagoriyan, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan

4. District Magistrate, Jaipur

5. Bhagwan Sahay Meena S/o Mr. Mangal Chand, Resident Of Plot No. 12, Jagdish Vihar-A, Heerapura, Luniyawas,

Sanganer, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015

6. Lali Devi W/o Mr. Bhagwan Sahay Meena, Resident Of Plot No. 12, Jagdish Vihar-A, Heerapura, Luniyawas, Sanganer,

District-Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Khandelwal for Mr. Saransh Ghiya

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha and Ms. Sunita Meena for

Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

02/04/2026

1. Mr. Akshay Khandelwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Saransh Ghiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, upon instructions, has confined his submissions to the

extent of prayer No.1 and 2 of the writ petition.

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 07:17:39 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 07:56:42 PM)

(2 of 4) [CW-979/2026]

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy in the present matter stands squarely covered by the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15697/2024 titled as AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. Versus Atma Ram Bishnoi & Ors. and other connected matters, the

relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“The facts narrated above clearly show that the respondent No.1 had taken loan from the petitioner and in the process, he had mortgaged his property for securing the loan amount. It is also clear that the respondent No.1 had not repaid the loan amount, therefore, the proceedings under the Act of 2002 were initiated against him. The proceedings aforesaid culminated into issuance of possession notice by the petitioner bank for securing the loan amount. After the petitioner having taken over possession of the mortgaged property of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 through his muscle power has forcibly taken over possession of the mortgaged property and has been enjoying the same without repayment of the loan amount due to the petitioner. The petitioner in these circumstances approached the respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar and respondent No.4-District Collector, Sri Ganganagar by way of filing appropriate representations as per the Rules for securing possession of the mortgaged

property.

It is informed that till date, the possession of mortgaged property has not been restored to the petitioner bank. The State functionaries are under an obligation to restore rule of law. If the petitioner is not allowed to take possession of the mortgaged property, it will amount to a clear case of defiance of rule of law and therefore, the respondents Nos.2 and 4 are under an obligation to act in consonance

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 07:17:39 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 07:56:42 PM)

(3 of 4) [CW-979/2026]

with the provisions of law for restoring possession of the petitioner in the circumstances when the

petitioner has already approached them.

This Court is surprised that on one hand, a person had taken loan and when the same was not repaid, the possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by the petitioner bank as per law but by sheer muscle power, the petitioner bank has been dislodged and possession of the mortgaged property has been forcibly taken over by the respondent No.1 and despite having represented to the law enforcing officer, nothing has been done to uphold ma