WP(C) 6206/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts R ecovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati in O. A. Case No.21/2001 whereunder, the proper ty mortgaged to the respondent Bank have been attached and a process of auction sale has been initiated. 2. Mr. B R Dey, learned senior counsel contends that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in question but since he had executed a Power of Attorney for the property, his relation had taken loan from the respondent bank on the strength of the said Power of Attorney. The petitioner claims that apart from the mortgaged property, some non-mortgaged properties have also been includ ed in the sale process. 3. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner should have been made a party in the proceeding before the impugned action was taken by the Tribunal. 4. However I find from the notice dated 9.1.2009 sent by the Recovery Offic er that the petitioner too was a noticee in the proceeding before the Tribunal. Yet he chose not to take any step in the Tribunal to put forward his objection t o the proceeding. After failing to take such steps after receiving notice from t he Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court raising various pleas, as have been noted above. 5. Having considered the above failure of the petitioner, I am of the view that this Court should not entertain this case. Accordingly the same is dismisse d. However the petitioner is granted liberty to move the Tribunal with the legal arguments that have been advanced before this Court. 6. The petition is disposed of accordingly.