The writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to provide details of a loan account and the decision on a proposal when the petitioner has already appeared before the DRT and can seek such details through a proper application before the DRT.

Page 1 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.37165 of 2022

M/s. Anjali Motors,

Kandhamal

…. Petitioner

Mr. Bhawani Sankar Panigrahi, Advocate

-versus-

Punjab National Bank,

SASTRA Division, Dwaraka,

New Delhi and Others

…. Opp. Parties

Mr. A. K. Jena,

Advocate for the Bank

CORAM:

JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

Order No.

ORDER (Oral)

11.01.2023

(Hybrid Mode)

01.

1.

The petitioner is a defaulting loanee facing

recovery process under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for

an outstanding liability of around Rs.40 Lakhs

together with future interest, charges and expenses.

The petitioner is stated to have filed a Securitization

Application bearing No.20/2021 assailing the Sale

Notice dated 17.11.2021 before the DRT, Cuttack

intimating the auction sale of the mortgaged property

(offered as a collateral security).

2.

The prayer in the present Writ Petition is

reproduced below:

“It is therefore, prayed that your Lordships may

graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, call

for the records, issue Rule NISI in the nature of Writ of

Certiorari/Mandamus calling upon the Opp. Parties,

to show cause as to why the Opp. Party Bank shall

// 2 //

Page 2 of 2

not be directed not to proceed for taking over

possession of the mortgaged properties without

intimating the details of the auction sale, if any, and

the decision taken on the proposal of the petitioner

dated 17.06.2022 vide Annexure-9;

And in the event the Opp. Parties fail to show cause

or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made

absolute, Opp. Parties Bank be directed to not to

proceed for taking over possession of the mortgaged

properties without intimating the details of the auction

sale, if any, and the decision taken on the proposal of

the petitioner dated 17.06.2022 vide Annexure-9.”

3.

Mr. A. K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the

Punjab National Bank/Opposite Party states that the

prayer made in the present Writ Petition is not

maintainable in view of the settled law, moreso, when

the petitioner has already appeared before the DRT.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for both the

parties, we are not inclined to invoke our writ

jurisdiction and issue any direction to the DRT for

providing the details of the loan account, which

remedy is available to the petitioner by making a

proper application before the DRT itself.

5.

Accordingly, the present Writ Petitions stands

dismissed.

(Jaswant Singh)

Judge

(M.S. Sahoo)

Judge

Sipun 11^th January, 2023

Cuttack