WP(C) 4748/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner who had secured a loan from the respondent bank and was proceeded against under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act ), had filed an Appeal under Section 17 of the Securitis ation Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Guwahati. Although the said Appeal was filed on 17.8.2010 numbered as Appeal No. 1 8/2010, it is averred that since there is no permanent Presiding Officer in the DRT, the Appeal and the interim prayer made therein have not been considered so far. It is further submitted that the Presiding Officer is expected to be availa ble on 6.9.2010 in the DRT. Pointing out the above, the learned counsel submits that if the responde nt bank in the mean time sale off hypothecated property, 3rd party’s rights will accrue and the petitioner will be rendered remedy less. In order to establish t he bonafide of the petitioner to repay the loan, learned counsel refers to the l oan accounts and submits that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid towards for repaym ent of the loan as recently as on 10.5.2010, soon after the first notice under t he Securitisation Act was received by the petitioner. Considering the above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitione r deserves protection from the impugned action until his Appeal can be considere d by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly the respondent bank is restrained f rom taking further coercive steps against the petitioner and the hypothecated pr operty until 7.9.2010 as the Presiding Officer of the DRT is expected to be avai lable to consider the petitioner’s Appeal on 6.9.2010 With this limited order, this writ petition stands disposed of.