Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19450 of 2018 Petitioner :- Brijesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anadi Krishna Narayana
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 bank.
The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
We had dealt with an identical order passed by the same District Magistrate in the case of Rakesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others in Writ C No.17990 of 2018 this writ petition was allowed by the judgment dated 25.05.2018 a copy of judgment has been placed before us.
Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the petitioner should avail of the remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 itself.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions we had allowed the writ petition holding that the order of the District Magistrate did not conform to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V. Nobel Kumar, 2013(9) SCC, 620 as the ingredients of Section 14 of the 2002 Act had not been examined. The present writ petition is identical on facts the writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 is quashed. The District Magistrate, Bulandshahar shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. So far as the petitioner is concerned the petitioner can take any plea regarding the merit of the transaction in proceedings under Section 17 of the 2002 Act for which he may approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 R./