1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Narpat Singh Lakhawat Versus State Bank of Bikaner & Anr. & Jaipur & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2196/2008 ... Date of Order: Sept. 04, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioners. Mr. P.K. Lohra, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: By an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, being IA No.10325/2008, the respondents seek vacation of the ex parte interim order dated 03-4-2008. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the bank has proceeded to recover the outstanding amount from the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act of 2002” hereinafter). A 2 notice Annx.2 was served on the petitioners, which was the notice for possession and the possession was to be handed over within sixty days from the date of the notice, which the petitioner failed to hand over. Thereafter the property mortgaged with the respondent bank was taken in possession under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 2002 and ultimately it was notified for auction vide Annx.5 dated 9-2-2008 and the date of auction was fixed on 21-3-2008. The property, the possession whereof was taken by the respondent bank, was auctioned on the notified date and it was auctioned in favour of the persons whose names have been mentioned in Annx.R/5, Annx.R/6 and Annx.R/7 and thereafter the sale certificates, as envisaged under rule 9 (6) of the Rules have been issued on 3-4-2008 in favour of the auction purchasers as the respondent bank has received the total amount of the auction sell from the auction purchasers. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the Act of 2002 itself provides the procedure and the manner in which the secured assets mortgaged with the respondent bank can be put to auction and the bank can realise the outstanding amount from the borrower or by auction of the mortgaged property/secured assets. Learned counsel submits that the auction purchasers have not been impleaded as the party and since the bank has received the amount from the auction purchasers, the sale certificates have been issued in 3 favour of the auction purchasers. From a perusal of the reply to the writ petition, as also the documents annexed therewith, it appears that the sale certificates have been issued in favour of the auction purchasers way back on 03-4-2008 after receiving the amount from the auction purchasers. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not aggrieved by the notices issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 2002 and the grievance of the petitioners is only to the effect that their properties have been sold in auction on 21-3-2008, which was a holiday on account of Holi festival and as such the prospective purchaser(s) could not participate in the auction sale. Be that as it may, since the respondent bank has proceeded strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2002 after obtaining the valuation report from the authorised Valuer and the auction proceedings are in conformity with the report of the Valuer, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the properties of the petitioners have been sold at a lesser price then what the actual price/value the properties could have fetched. Even otherwise, these are the disputed questions of facts and the same cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction as to whether the properties of the petitioners have been sold at the price less than that of the correct market price. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs.2 lac in compliance of the order of this Court dated 3-4-2008, therefore, the respondent bank may be directed to repay the excess amount to the petitioners along with interest thereon. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after adjusting the outstanding amount, if some amount remains in excess then the same will be repaid to the petitioners along with interest. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the respondent bank, after adjusting the amount received from the auction sales and Rs. 2 lac deposited by the petitioners in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2-4- 2008 against the outstanding loan amount, shall repay the amount which is excess to the loan amount, to the petitioners along with interest @ 18% per annum, within one month from today. No order as to costs. The application under Section 226 (3) of the Constitution of India is allowed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs 5 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.3923/2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2196/2008 (Narpat Singh Lakhawat & Anr. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & ors.) Date of Order: Sept. 04, 2008 HON'BLE MR. H.R. PANWAR, J. Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioners. Mr. P.K. Lohra, for the respondents. Since the writ petition itself is dismissed, the ad interim order dated 3-4-2008 is vacated and the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs