1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.760/2008 Ashok Kumar Shah V/s The State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & ors. 26.8.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sangeet Lodha Mr.Girish Sankhla for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is being assailed on the ground that no appeal can be preferred under the provisions of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as neither notices were issued nor any order was passed by the authorities. The learned Single Judge of this Court, on appreciation of prayer and pleadings of the writ petitioner, dismissed the writ application saying that there is a statutory provision of appeal under section 17 of the Act. It appears from the materials on record that an order auctioning the mortgaged property was passed by the authorities. Section 17 of the Act reads as under:- “17. Right to appeal.-(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken: Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower..” On a reading of Section 17, which is a provision pertaining to right of appeal, it appears that any person including the borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures 2 referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under the Chapter, may make an application alongwith such fee as may be prescribed. The word referred to as measures in section 17 of the Act postulates any action taken by the authorities. The order directing auction of mortgaged property is one of the measures as referred to in sub- section (4) of section 13 of the Act. Necessarily, therefore, the right of appeal survives and the learned Single Judge of this Court was thus wholly justified in directing the writ petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal. The grievances raised in the writ application and also in the appeal will be entertained and considered by the appellate forum in accordance with law. With these directions and observations, this appeal is dismissed. Before part with this order, we observe that in case statutory appeal is filed within two weeks' from today, no coercive measures will be taken by the authorities for auction of the mortgaged property till then. (Sangeet Lodha)J. (Narayan Roy)CJ Parmar