1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR

RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

---------------------------------------------------

CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6256 of 2016

PETITIONERS:

1.

Pankaj Kumar Dagriya s/o Shri Jayanti Lal Dagriya,

aged about 38 years by caste Dagriya, resident of

Hiran Magri Sector 11, Udaipur.

2.

Sheetal Dagriya S/o Late Shri Sumati Lal Dagriya, by

caste Dagriya, resident of Parsola, Tehsil Dhariawad,

District Udaipur.

3.

Vijay Kumar S/o Late Shri Sumati Lal Dagriya, by

caste Dagriya, resident of Parsola, Tehsil Dhariawad,

District Udaipur.

4.

Smt. Bhagwanti Devi wife of Shri Jayanti Lal Dagriya,

by caste, resident of Hiran Magri Sector 11, Udaipur.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS:

1.

The District Magistrate, Udaipur.

2.

M/s New Age Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office C/o

Anand Mahal hotel, Inside Udiapole, Sarvaritu Vilas,

Udaipur.

3.

Invent Assets Securitization and Reconstruction Pvt.

Ltd., Regd. Office : 7, Raheja Centre, Ground Floor,

214, Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai 400021.

Date of Order :

4^th October 2016

HON'BLE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI,J.

MR. BS SANDHU, for Petitioners

DR JAY CHOKSI, for respondent No.3

2

ORDER

-----

The matter comes up on an application under

Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India moved on behalf

of respondent No.3 with a prayer for vacation of ex parte

interim order dated 27.05.2016.

Service of the notice upon respondent Nos.1 and 2

is duly effected, however, none has put in appearance on

their behalf.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent No.3, the matter is finally heard.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition while

praying for granting following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully

prayed that this petition for writ in the nature

of mandamus may kindly be allowed and by an

appropriate writ, order and directions:

(i)

the action of the respondent no.1 in not

deciding the objections submitted by the

petitioners in the application under

Section 14 of the Act of 2002 may kindly

be declared illegal.

(ii)

The respondent no.1 may be directed to

decide the objections filed by the

petitioners in accordance with law after

giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners.

3

(iii)

The application under Section 14 of the

Act of 2002 filed by the respondent no.3

to the extent it proceeds for taking over

possession of the shops in question

owned by the petitioners may kindly be

declared illegal and the same may kindly

be quashed and set aside.

(iv)

The respondents may be restrained from

taking coercive action for dispossessing

the petitioners from the shops in

question.

(v)

any other relief which this Hon'ble Court

deems just and proper in favour of the

petitioner, may kindly be granted and

(vi)

the cost of the writ petition be allowed in

favour of the petitioner.”

The case set up by the petitioners in this writ

petition is this that they purchased four shops of different

measurement situated on main road from Udiapole to Gulab

Bagh, Udaipur from respondent No.2 vide registered sale-

deed dated 17.05.1993. It is averred in the petition that

recently representatives of respondent No.1 District

Magistrate, Udaipur approached the petitioners and

informed them that the said shops are to be seized and they

would be dispossessed from the shops. Upon enquiry, the

petitioners came to know that the shops in question are

sought to be taken in possession pursuant to the application

filed by the respondent No.3 under section 14 of the

4

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the

Act of 2002' hereinafter). When the petitioners obtained the

copy of the application under section 14 of the Act of 2002

dated 29.12.2015 from the office of the respondent No.1,

they came to know that respondent No.2