IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 5 of 2006 (M/B) 1. M/s Uttaranchal Fertilizers & Chemicals. through its Proprietor Sri Pooran Lal Arya, S/o Sri Makol Ram Arya, R/o 2/115, Devendra Cottage, Ambica Vihar, Amarpali, Nainital Road, Bhotia Parao, Haldwani, Nainital. 2. Smt. Radha Arya, W/o Sri Pooran Lal Arya, R/o 2/115, Devendra Cottage, Ambica Vihar, Amarpali, Nainital Road, Bhotia Parao, Haldwani, Nainital. ……… Petitioners Versus 1. District Magistrate, Nainital. 2. Registrar, Cooperative Society, Uttaranchal. 3. Almora Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., having its Head Office at Lala Bazar, Almora and Branch at Meera Marg, Haldwani, Nainital Through its Branch Manager. 4. Tehsildar, Haldwani, Nainital. ……… Respondents Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Mr. B.C. Pande, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. M.M. Ghildiyal, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. B.C. Pande, Senior Advocate for respondent No. 3. They are heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: 2 “i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned tender notice dated 26.12.2005 (Annexure No. 3) to the writ Petition. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to not sale the house hold property of the petitioner except Mortgage property through auction. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may graciously direct the Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 to grant the two month time for one time settlement between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 3. iii Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of the mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to not initiate any proceeding in coverave manner till the final decision of the final decision of the Civil Appeal No.(S) 432/04 Greater Bombay Case which is going to be decided in the month of Feb. 06. iv. Issue a writ order or direction as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v. Award the cost of the petition. vi. So God Help Me.” 3. The petitioners, for almost the same reliefs sought in this writ petition, had earlier also filed three petitions i.e. W.P. No. 68 of 2005 (M/B), W.P. No. 1161 of 2005 (M/B) and W.P. No. 1162 of 2005 (M/B). It is a different matter that the petitioners, in their anxiety to project that the cause of action and the subject matter of these writ petitions were different, included the first petitioner Company in some of the writ petitions and the other writ petitions were filed on behalf of the Director / Partners of the Company. The fact remains that in all the writ petitions, including the present one, the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the consequential recovery / auction proceedings were challenged. 4. In Writ Petition No. 1162 of 2005 (M/B), it was observed vide order dated 18.10.2005 that the petitioners have an effective alternate remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of Act 54 of 2002 against the action initiated by the Bank. In Writ Petition No. 1161 of 2005 (M/B), vide order dated 18.10.2005, it was further observed that in view of the provisions contained in 3 Section 35 of Act No. 54 of 2002, the respondent Bank is entitled to resort to the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act and the provisions contained in Sections 70 and 71 if the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 cannot deny the right of the third respondent to resort to the provisions of Section 14 of Act No. 54 of 2002. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners informed us that the petitioners had challenged the orders dated 18.10.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 1161 of 2005 (M/B) and Writ Petition No. 1162 of 2005 (M/B) by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners have mentioned the above fact in para 1 of the writ petition also. The effect of the withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition by the petitioners is that the orders dated 18.10.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 1161 of 2005 (M/B) and Writ Petition No. 1162 of 2005 (M/B) have become final against the petitioners. 6. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 01.03.2006 01.03.2006 G