IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3775 of 2011 M/S ROYAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS ONE OF DIRECTOR MR. NARESH KUMAR AGRAWAL SON OF LATE DEEN DAYAL AGRAWAL, R/O FLAT NO.710-E, DEENA TOWER, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, PATNA MAIN BRANCH, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA, 2ND FLOOR, PATNA MAIN BRANCH, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA………………………………...RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :M/s Jagdish Prasad and Indeshwari Pd. Mandal, Advocates. For the respondents :M/s Aditya Sharan, P.K. Sharan and H.K. Sharan, Advocates. ----------- 02/ 26.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging General Auction issued by the Authorized Officer, Stressed Assets Management Branch, State Bank of India, Patna (respondent no.2) published in Hindi daily newspaper “Hindustan” dated 06.02.2011 (Annexure-11) by which personal property of the petitioner has been put on auction for realization of alleged dues of Rs.3,89,10,215.35 against the loan and the date for auction has been fixed on 09.03.2011 and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Now a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that when earlier this case was not being taken up, he filed an application bearing M.A. No.24 of 2011 in pending O.A. No.11 of 2006 and after hearing the parties, the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of M.A. - 2 - No.24 of 2011 vide order dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure-13) and settled the dues of the bank at Rs.2 crores and left Rs.30 lacs for survival of borrower and his family and the borrower was directed to pay Rs.2 crores in the orders prescribed. Thereafter vide order dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure-14) the Debts Recovery Tribunal directed the bank to keep the amount of DD in No Lien Account and if auction has been made no sale certificate shall be issued in favour of any of the parties and if sale has not been made, the same shall not be made till the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Patna if challenge is made against order dated 24.02.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order has been challenged by the respondents in this court. Learned counsel for the respondents does not deny. 5. In the said circumstances, when the proceeding has already been initiated with respect to the same subject matter and an order has been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in that regard, there is no occasion for this court to continue with the writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge any order passed by the Tribunal or any authority before this court, if he is legally entitled to do so. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)