Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and thereby quash the impugned order dated 15/03/2021 passed by the opposite party No.3 in case no. 02238/2020 Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act 2020 styled as "State bank of India v/s Smt.Seema Arora."
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or directions to the opposite party no.4 not to initiate the auction proceeding of the house of petitioners and not issue the sale certificate.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or directions to the opposite parties to not create any hindrance over the peaceful possession of house of the petitioners."
At the very outset, Sri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the State of Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "Bank") as also learned State counsel submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. It is in view of Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2002"), where the remedy is available to the petitioners.
It is also stated the petitioners have already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal under by means of an application bearing S.A. No. 155 of 2021 (Smt. Seema Arora and another v. State Bank of India and another).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1, wife of petitioner No. 2, who is the borrower, is suffering from COVID-19 and as the sale proceedings have been concluded, the respondent-Bank would dispossess the petitioners, as such, the writ petition may be entertained and some interim protection be granted in favour of the petitioners.
In response to aforesaid, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the side opposite that in PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 564 of 2020 (State of U.P. v. Suo Moto) there is an interim order and in view of the same, the petitioners would not be evicted till 31st May, 2021.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the remedy available to the petitioners under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the remedy, as provided under Section 17 of the Act of 2002.
Order Date :- 7.5.2021 Arun/-