IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.44121 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT SUSHEELA A W/O SHANTHANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O SHYAMA NILAYA, SHARAVATHI NAGARA, MAIN ROAD, A BLOCK, SHIVAMOGGA NOW RESIDING AT VIJAYASHREE NILAYA, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA – 577201. … PETITIONER (By Mr. M NAGESH ADV. FOR Mr. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA – 577201.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF BARODA SHIVAMOGGA BRANCH PATIL BUILDING NEAR ASHOKA CIRCLE B H ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577201.
3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF BARODA SHIVAMOGGA BRANCH PATIL BUILDING NEAR ASHOKA CIRCLE B H ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577201.
4. SRI K SHANKAR S/O T KANNAPPA MODALIYAR DHANALAKSHMI COCONUT ESTATE OPP DR B R AMBEDKAR LADIES HOSTEL NAVULE, SHIVAMOGGA – 577201. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. Y D HARSHA AGA FOR R1 R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the proceedings dtd.5.4.2016 passed by the R-1 vide Annex-K and sale Notification dtd.18.7.2016 issued under rule 8[6] the security interest [Enforcement] rules 2002 issued by the R-3 vide Annex-M and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.N.Nagesh, learned counsel for Sri.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) Writ in the nature of certiorari and to quash the proceedings No.SMGDC.MAG(3).SarafaESI.CR- 004/16-17(55800) dtd:5.4.2016 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-K and Sale notice dtd:18.7.2016 issued under Rule 8(6) the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-M.
b) Writ of mandamus or direction and direct the Respondents No.2 & 3 to consider the notice/representation dtd:4.7.2016 vide Annexure-L, dtd:27.7.2016 vide Annexure-N and representation dtd:1.8.2016 vide Annexure-P and to drop the proceedings in respect of the schedule property.
c) Pass any other appropriate writ order or direction as deems fit under the facts and circumstances.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has re-paid the entire amount of loan to the respondent and the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation for return of original documents furnished by him to the Bank and the competent authority of the Bank to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that in case the petitioner submits a representation, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the competent authority shall consider the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three weeks therefrom.
Sd/- JUDGE RV