IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1938 of 2010 (M/S) Gulab Singh ……Petitioner Versus Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda and two others …….Respondents Dated: November 18, 2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Mr. Niranjan Bhatt and Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following relief:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned auction proceeding dated 2.6.2010 (Annexure 4). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to create third party interest pertaining to the property of petitioner and not to give possession of the petitioner’s property to anyone during the pendency of Securitisation Application No.213 of 2010 “Birendra Singh Negi & others v. Bank of Baroda & others” pending before Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal at Lucknow. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to deliver the possession of the property of petitioner to the petitioner till the final decision in Securitisation Application No.213 of 2010 “Birendra Singh Negi & others v. Bank of Baroda & others”. iv) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2 v) Award cost of the petition.” The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition No.832/2010 (M/S) “Birendra Singh & others v. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda & others” before this Court for quashing the notice which was issued u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short, the Act). The said petition was dismissed in limine as an alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal under Section 17 of the Act before Debt Recovery Tribunal was available to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is admitted to the petitioner also that the appeal is pending for disposal but during the pendency of appeal, the property was auctioned by the Bank pursuant to the notice u/s 13(4) of the Act. Since the appeal is lying pending for disposal before Debt Recovery Tribunal, hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, if the petitioner has any grievance, he may raise the same before the appellate tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine with the direction to the learned Appellate Tribunal to the decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. (B.S.Verma, J.) 18.11.2010 RG