Alok Kumar Verma, J
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: -
“i. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned auction notice dated 20.01.2025 issued by the respondents
(contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).
ii. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to auction the petitioner's land/ house.
iii. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner for one time
settlement against the loan.
iv. Pass any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
v. Award the cost of the writ petition to the Petitioner.â€
2. The case of the petitioner is that he took an industrial loan of Rs. 53 Lakh from the respondent no. 1 - Bank. He paid Rs. 15 Lakh to the bank. On
19.09.2011, a notice w as issued to him under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruct ion of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 to pay Rs. 65,59, 626/ -. The respondents took possession of his immovable property on 18.02.2012. An auction notice dated
20.01.2025 has been issued by the Authorized Officer of the Bank for the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 65,59,626/ -, according to which his
immovable property is to be auctioned on 12.02.2025.
3. Heard Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Siddhartha Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate, contended that the petitioner had paid around Rs.15 Lakh to the bank. He wants to repay the entire loan amount
but due to his chronic disease he could not pay the loan amount. He sent a representation to the respondents to allow him to pay minimum amount for
making settlement under the OTS Scheme. The said representation has been rejected by the bank after filing the present writ petition, whereas, the
petitioner is ready for one time settlement with the respondents bank. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate further submitted that the petitioner is willing to
move a fresh representation under the OTS Scheme.
5. Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate, has opposed the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he submitted that if the
petitioner moves a fresh representation under OTS Scheme, within three days from today, the said representation shall be decided within ten days
thereafter.
6. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate, agrees with the said proposal.
7. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner moves a
fresh representation with a certified copy of this order to the respondent no. 2 within three days from today for one time settlement, the respondent no.
2 shall consider and decide the said representation as expeditiously as possible, but not later than ten days thereafter.
8. Till decision is taken on the fresh representation of the petitioner, the sale shall not be confirmed.
9. It is made expressed any opinion clear that this Court has not on the merit of the case.
10. Let a certified copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner, today itself, as per rules.
