IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9880 of 2011 M/s Shree Ganesh Trading Co., Amritsar & another ...Petitioners Versus Indian Overseas Bank, Amritsar & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Rohit Suri, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners are aggrieved against the action of the Bank, which sold away the property, as per them, at throw away price. Firm M/s Shree Ganesh Trading Co. had availed limit from the respondent-bank and had mortgaged plot in khasra No.26/26/1/1 in village Naushera Nangli, District Amritsar as a collateral security. The petitioners concede that they had substantive transaction with the Bank and have failed to discharge the liability. The Bank had served a demand notice requiring the petitioners to discharge the liability of ` 37,73,718/- as due on 30.4.2010. The account had been declared as NPA on 30.11.2009. The petitioners made a request to the respondents to regularise their loan account. Instead, the Bank fixed the auction of the property on 16.12.2010. Their grievance is that no proper assessment and valuation of the property was done and also of the structure and building. The property has been put to sale and, therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition to make a Civil Writ Petition No.9880 of 2011 :2: grievance that there has been violation in the method of conducting the auction. The first submission made by the counsel is based on Order 21 Rule 73 C.P.C. This Rule talks of restriction on the bidding or purchase by officers. It provides that no officer or other person having any duty to perform in connection with any sale shall, either directly or indirectly bid for acquire or attempt to acquire any interest in the property. The Recovery Agent being an `Advocate' could not have function as a Recovery Agent for the Bank. The petitioner thereafter would submit that under Section 13(12) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, 2002, the power to be exercised by the officer of the Bank would not authorize the Bank to appoint Recovery Officer for carrying out action stipulated under Section 13 (4) of the Act. Concededly, all these submissions can very well be made before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thus, without going into the merits of the plea made, the petitioner is relegated to his alternative remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction at this stage is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. June 01, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE