IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 377 of 2010. 1. Sattar Ahamad, S/O Shri Habib, 2. Smt. Afsana, W/O Sattar Ahamad, Both R/O Mohalla-Paodhoi, Jawalapur, Pargana-Jawalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. … Petitioners. Vs. UCO Bank Branch Sadhu Bela Marg, Sawarnath Nagar, Haridwar, District Haridwar through its Manager. …Respondent. Mr. M.S.Tyagi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Date March 23, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 1743 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the auction sale of the house of the petitioners (contained as Annexure No.3). According to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 borrowed a house loan of Rs. 3,80,000/- on 9-9-2006 from the respondent-Bank for purchase of house situated at Mohalla Paodhoi, Jawalapur, district Haridwar. The petitioner no. 1 met with an accident on 10-5-2007 and he went into comma due to head injury and was kept under treatment in the Himalayan Institute Hospital Swami Ramnagar, Dehradun, for a long time and because of financial crises, he could not pay the instalments of the said loan. In the auction notice it has been mentioned that notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act) was issued to the petitioners and thereafter possession was taken. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the petition that without due and proper notice to the petitioners, the respondent-Bank in illegal manner is proceeding with the auction of the house of the petitioners. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the provision of Section 13(3A) of the Act, which reads as under:- “(3A). If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower; Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District Judge under section 17A.” In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the auction sale is to be held tomorrow i.e. on 24-3-2010 at 11 a.m., the petitioners are given liberty to make a representation before the Authorized Officer of the respondent-Bank tomorrow at 10 a.m. The petitioners may raise their grievance in the representation and the Authorized Officer whosoever may decide the representation of the petitioners by a speaking order before conducting the auction sale. With the said direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioners today on payment of usual charges. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3