CWP-4534/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. *** SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4534/2010 Smt. Mairunisha and another. Versus. Shamshuddin and others. DATE OF ORDER : 06/04/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Rajesh Sharma, for petitioner. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order Anx.6 dt. 22/02/2010 passed by the Collector, Jaipur on application filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Counsel submits that the dispute in regard to the property in question which was placed as security is pending before the Civil Court and in such circumstances, if it is put to auction by the financial institution, prejudice will cause to the petitioners. It appears from the order passed by the District Collector dt. 22/02/2010 that a notice was first issued by the financial institution under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 and after expiry of the statutory period and affording opportunity to the principal debtor, when the account remained NPA, proceedings were initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 CWP-4534/2010 2 and an application has been filed by the financial institution under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 for taking proper security for taking possession of the property in question. After the financial institution initiated proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, remedy is available to the principal debtor or any person aggrieved, if permitted under law, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. As alleged by the petitioners, that they are neither the principal debtors nor guarantor, it is for the petitioners to examine as to whether, in the facts of the instant case, remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 is available to them or not but at least this Court will not like to interfere in the proceedings which the financial institution has initiated under the Act, 2002 in the facts of the instant case. Consequently, this Court finds no substance in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.2/ 4534-CW-2010-final.doc