IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16566 of 2010 Smt.Rekha Patel W/o Ravi Patel, R/o Ashok Vihar Colony, Maranpur, P.S. Civil Lines, Town & Distt-Gaya, at present residing at Mohalla- Gewal Bigha, South Police Lines, P.S. Rampur, Town & Distt-Gaya. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. Union Bank of India, through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Mumbai-400021 2. The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office Nasheman Bhawan, Mazharul Haque Path, Patna- 800001(Bihar) 3. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Dhami Tola Branch, Gaya 4. Sri Priya Ranjan S/o Sri Dhrub Prasad Singh, R/o Radhay Shyam Motor Garage, Ganga Mahal, P.S.Kotwali, Distt-Gaya. ..................Respondents For the petitioner : M/s Satya Prakash Srivastava and Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocates. For respondent no.4 : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. L.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Bank(R.1-3) : Mr. Anup Kr.Sinha, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 03/ 01.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding initiated under 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) against the petitioner and also for quashing the issuance of sale certificate dated 25.09.2009 in favour of respondent no.4. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner is the borrower and due to non-payment of the amount of loan her secured assets were declared Non-Performing Assets, whereafter demand notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was sent to her on 31.05.2007. Thereafter possession notice under section 13 (4) of the Act was also sent to the - 2 - petitioner on 20.09.2007 and finally auction notice was sent to the petitioner on 09.08.2009 according to which auction sale was held on 10.09.2009 in favour of respondent no.4 and sale certificate was issued in his favour on 25.09.2009. 4. It further transpires that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid demand notice, possession notice and auction notice as well as auction sale in favour of respondent no.4 in Appeal No.75 of 2009. During the course of hearing the petitioner stated that she was willing and ready to pay the entire dues of the respondent-Bank and hence the said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 03.12.2009 fixing dates for the petitioner to pay the amount with a condition that if the petitioner failed to do the same within the time fixed, the respondent- Bank shall be free to take legal action in accordance with law. It is claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that she had also deposited Rs.3 lacs after passing the impugned order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 5. The said order cannot be said to be against the petitioner rather it was as per the willingness and readiness shown by the petitioner herself, hence there was no occasion for the petitioner to file this writ petition. Furthermore, the petitioner has sought quashing of the entire proceeding initiated under the Act. If she wanted to challenge the entire proceeding she should have challenged the proceeding when demand notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was issued against her but she did not take any step nor even she challenged notice under section 13 (4) of the Act issued on 20.09.2007, rather she woke up only when the property was sold in - 3 - favour of respondent no.4 on 10.09.2009 and sale certificate was issued in his favour on 25.09.2009. In the said circumstances, reliefs claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition appear to be absolutely frivolous and misconceived and cannot be granted. 6. However, in any view of the matter the auction purchaser, namely Sri Priya Ranjan, who is respondent no.4 in this writ petition, had himself challenged the impugned order (dated 03.12.2009) vide C.W.J.C. No.1626 of 2010 which has been disposed of by an order of this court dated 01.12.2011 setting aside the said order dated 03.12.2009 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in Appeal No.75 of 2009 and the matter has been remitted to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna for considering the matter afresh after hearing all the parties concerned, namely the borrower (petitioner), the auction purchaser (respondent no.4) as well as the authorities of the respondent-Bank. 7. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the questions which she wants to raise before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in the aforesaid appeal. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)