Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) Heard Sri A. K. Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dharmendra Vaish and Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondents that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1281 of 2018 (Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another Vs. Mathew K.C.), decided on 30.01.2018, had deprecated the practice of the High Court to entertain the writ petition, ignoring the statutory alternative remedy of appeal, and the judgement of the High Court was set-aside. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal, under Section 18 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Therefore, the writ petition is not liable to be entertained.
(3.) However, the counsel for the petitioners submits that, there is a special circumstances, in as much as within period of one year of sanctioning the loan, the account has been declared as non performing account, and recovery proceedings has been initiated, although within period of one year the petitioners has already deposited more than six lacs rupees, and according to guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, the account could not be declared as non performing account. The entire proceeding was malafide. The property of the petitioners at the time of grant of loan was assessed to the value of Rs.47 lacs, however, at the time of auction it was auctioned for Rs.38 lacs. The petitioner is being deprived of his property in very high handedness manner, therefore, in case, the petitioner is relegated to file the appeal, he would be required to deposit at least 35% of the entire outstanding dues, for which the petitioners is not competent at this moment. Therefore, the writ petition be entertained.;