IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21158 of 2011 Dr. Manju Kumari @ Manju Kumari, Wife of Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, Resident of Shiv Kunj-Bela Bihar, P.S.-Town, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur……………………………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. Manoj Kumar Son of Late Jagdish Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Gola Road, Ashoka Auto Service, P.S.-Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 2. Dilip Kumar Son of Late Jagdish Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Gola Road, Ashoka Auto Service, P.S.-Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 3. Mukesh Kumar Son of Late Jagdish Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Gola Road, Ashoka Auto Service, P.S.-Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 4. Central Bank of India having its Head Office Situated at Mumbai through its Chairman. 5. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Speaker Chauk, Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur. 6. The Chief Manager, Central Bank Of India, Zonal Office, Pawapuri, Bihar N H 28, Bhagwanpur, P.S. & District Muzaffarpur. 7. The Authorized Officer, Central Bank Of India, Regional Office, Speaker Chauk, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna through its Registrar. ……………Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pushpendra Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the Bank : Mr. P. Vedasen, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 03/ 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna in S.A. 162 of 2011 whereby he has allowed respondents 1 to 3 to pay off their balance of their dues as outstanding against the loan accounts of M/s Ashoka Auto Services, M/s Ashoka Lubricants and House Building Loan Account of Dilip Kumar and has further been pleased to direct the respondent Bank to accept the amount and has - 2 - allowed the private respondents to retain the property – a property already sold to the petitioner and whose possession has already been handed over to the petitioner by issuance of sale certificate by following the procedure prescribed in Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with Rule 8 & 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. (ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Bank not to cancel the sale certificate dated 17.08.2011 issued in favour of the petitioner in Appendix V to the Rules. (iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Bank to hand over the physical possession of the property purchased by the petitioner in Auction sale dated 07.06.2011 for an amount of Rs.1.25 crores being the highest bid and for which sale certificate had already been issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.08.2011. (iv) To grant any other relief or relief(s) to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. From perusal of the impugned order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure-14) it transpires that appeal was filed by the borrowers (respondent nos.1 to 3) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in which order dated 20.10.2011 was passed. By the said order the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna had on one hand held that he disposed of the appeal as his hand was tight as auction had already taken place and sale certificate was already issued in favour of auction purchaser (writ petitioner) and hence if the appeal is allowed the auction purchaser will face much difficulty, whereas on the other hand, he had directed the borrowers to pay the entire dues and expenditure on production receipt along with 12% interest and 5% penalty on auction purchaser money for which the Bank will supply - 3 - total calculation to the borrowers within 07 days and the same shall be paid by the appellant within 21 days from the date of the said order in addition to Rs.10,000.00 as legal cost to auction purchaser. 4. It transpires that the auction purchaser has been given notional possession by way of the sale certificate and the physical possession is going to follow, but without giving any direction in that regard certain observations have been made which may adversely affect the auction purchaser (writ petitioner). 5. Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) provides an appeal against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal before the Appellate Tribunal which is functional. 6. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal along with requisites and a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within 15 days from today, the appellate authority shall consider the same and decide it by a speaking order expeditiously. If the petitioner wants to seek any interim order with regard to stay of any action taken by the respondent-Bank or the borrowers, she may file an interlocutory application before the Appellate Tribunal which shall consider the same and decide it without delay in accordance with law. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)