Chief Justice's Court

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10047 of 2021

Petitioner :- Ram Raj

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Fakhruzzaman

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Chief Justice

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Matter is taken up through video conferencing.

The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by

Additional District Magistrate, Jhansi in purported exercise of

power of Under Section 13 of the Securitisation And

Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

In the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and

Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 wherein in paragraph 42 and 43 it is

held:

"42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside.

If respondent No.1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued

under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have

availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The

expression `any person' used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes

within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other

person who may be affected by the action taken under