C.W.P. No.10979 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10979 of 2011 Date of Decision. 05.07.2011 Rajinder Singh son of Dhanna Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Union of India GNC, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager .....Respondent Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the action of the respondent-Bank through the Branch Manager putting up the property in auction without issuing notice to the petitioner and without providing for an opportunity to take part in the bid. The action for sale is admittedly under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and any person aggrieved by the auction has appropriate remedy by means of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is ready to pay the amount but still the amount is not being received by the Recovery Officer. There is a procedure under the relevant Rules for deposit of money and the petitioner is bound to exhaust that remedy before he can C.W.P. No.10979 of 2011 -2- complain of any violation of the provisions of Act. The intervention of the High Court in matter relating to sale of property and grant of interim order has been frowned upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions and particularly in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110. In Transcore Vs. Union of India & Anr (2008) 1 SCC 125 and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 782, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an effective, efficacious remedy is only through Section 17 of SARFAESI Act and not by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. I do not think that the petitioner can have any valid reason for redressal of grievance before this Court. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authorities prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 3. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty as aforesaid. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 05, 2011 Pankaj*