Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) MATTER has come up on application Under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the exparte stay order passed by this Court on 27.10.09, but with consent of counsel for the parties the matter has been finally heard at the order stage itself.
(2.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dt.26.8.09 whereby the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur on an application submitted by the Bank for changing the venue of holding auction proceedings from Ajmer to Jaipur in regard of the property situated at Ajmer granted permission vide order impugned dt.26.8.09. The main thrust of submissions of the counsel for petitioner is that copy of the application filed by the Bank for change of venue for holding auction proceedings, which was taken note of by the Recovery Officer, was not supplied to the petitioner and no reason has been assigned for changing the venue for holding auction proceedings, particularly when the property is situated at Ajmer. It will be relevant to observe that earlier also the recovery officer passed order dt.09/04/2008 to hold a public auction at Ajmer on 02/06/2008 but for good reasons it failed and Bank had a bonafide apprehension that it will not be materialised at Ajmer and in such circumstances, submitted application (Ann.7) and prayed that venue for holding auction proceedings may be shifted from Ajmer to Jaipur, which was granted by Recovery Officer vide order dt.26.8.09.
(3.) COUNSEL for petitioner submits that the change of venue for holding auction proceedings which has taken place is causing great prejudice to the petitioner and he has not been able to get a prospective buyer who can purchase the property in auction proceedings initiated by the Bank on account of change of venue for holding auction proceedings.;