- (1.) Being aggrieved of the order dated 31.12.2014 in S.A. No. 80 of 2013 of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as the writ petitioner) approached the learned writ court vide W.P.(C) No. 233 of 2015 with the following prayers: (A) For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs in the nature of mandamus directing upon the respondents to take an appropriate decision with respect to permitting the Petitioner for selling only a part of the mortgaged assets for the purpose of liquidating the entire dues of the bank or in terms of the RBI guidelines read with Respondent Bank's own guidelines for settlement of the dues before concluding the sale through E-Auction Sale in terms of advertisement published in Prabhat Khabar dated 14th January, 2005 especially in view of the fact that the said direction has already been given by this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 07.08.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 5259 of 2013 and further that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has no power/jurisdiction to issue such directions as prayed for in the present writ petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in as much as the power of Debts Recovery Tribunal is restricted/limited to the extent of considering whether any of the measures referred to in sub section 4 of section 13 of the SARFAESI Act taken by the Secured creditors for enforcement of security are in acordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the rules made there under and as such the Debts Recovery Tribunal being the creature of the statue has no extraordinary jurisdiction/ power beyond the scope and jurisdiction conferred upon it under the Act. Thus under the peculiar circumstances an appropriate direction can be issued only by this Hon'ble Court by exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (B) For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 31.12.2014 passed in S.A. No. 80 of 2013 by Sri B.N. Dash, Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 07.08.2014 passed in W.P(C) No. 5259 of 2013 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Prasad and also the SARFAESI Appeal being S.A. No. 80 of 2013 has been dismissed without complying with the direction and the observations made by this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 07.08.2014 and has passed an order in a totally biased manner inasmuch as the Presiding Officer has been appointed on deputation from the Assistant General Manager (AGM) Cadre of the State Bank of India and is a interested party to the dispute as the respondents are the officers of the State Bank of India, who are superior in rank to that of the Presiding Officer which has direct bearing on the result of this case and thus, under such peculiar circumstances since the appointment of the Presiding Officers itself is against Section 5 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The petitioner being the borrower of the State Bank of India has been seriously prejudice and as such, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which empowers this Hon'ble Court to keep a close watch on the functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunals which fall within their respective jurisdiction and also insure a smooth, efficient and transparent working of the said Tribunal in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India and Another Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and another, 2013 1 JLJR 387; and further that Petitioner may not be directed to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal especially in view of the fact that the remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is not available for the present in view of the fact that the appellate court situated at Allahabad is not functional for the present as the post of Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal is vacant since long and under such circumstances, the petitioner has no alternative remedy than to approach this Hon'ble Court; (C) For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs in the nature of certiorari for quashing of E-Auction Sale notice dated 13.01.2015 published in Prabhat Khabar daily newspaper dated 14th January, 2015 whereby and whereunder in complete defiance of the order dated 07.08.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5259 of 2013 the respondent bank have proceeded to advertise for E-Auction Sale of the entire mortgaged assets by exercising power under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by fixing reserve price of Rs.16.86 crore for recovery of the outstanding amount of Rs.19,11,85,402/- along with up-to-date interest and cost as against the valuation of the entire mortgaged assets to the tune of Rs.52 crore and odd in as much as the entire property is sought to be sold for a petty amount of Rs.16.86 crore only thereby depriving the petitioner from its rightful claim of his right to property which is constitutional right enshrined under the Constitution of India especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has already given an offer to bring its own buyers for making payment of the entire dues of the bank under One Time Settlement Policy of RBI by selling only a part of the mortgaged assets in terms of the order dated 07.08.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5259 of 2013, but the respondent bank without providing such opportunity is bent upon to dispose of the entire mortgaged assets in a very highly illegal and malafide manner by exercising the power conferred under Rule 8 of the Security (Enforcement) Rules, 2002."
(2.) The ground for knocking at the door of the writ court taken by the writ petitioner was that DRAT at Allahabad was not functional at that particular time which has now been made functional. Record of the Writ Court reveals that the respondent-Bank was asked with regard to any specific scheme for one-time settlement which was ultimately produced by the respondent-Bank as is indicated in the order No.4 dated 12.02.2015. It is thereafter on 03.03.2015, impugned order came to be passed which reads: "This writ petition was listed on 10.02.2015 when the respondent-Bank was directed to produce the one-time settlement scheme. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, a counter-affidavit was filed however, the one-time settlement scheme was not brought on record and therefore, on 12.02.2015, the following order was passed; 6. In view of the above, the respondent-Bank is directed to file an affidavit producing a copy of the Bank's scheme and a copy of the same shall be served upon the counsel for the petitioner. 7. One week's time is granted to the respondent-Bank for filing affidavit bringing the Bank's scheme on record. Further one week's time is granted to the petitioner for filing response to the same. 8. Post the matter on 03.03.2015. 9. In the meantime, the e-auction notice dated 13.01.2015 published in the newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" on 14.01.2015, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure28, shall be kept at abeyance. The petitioner is directed to disclose how much amount it would deposit and within how much time. 2. Today, during the course of argument, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that the petitioner undertakes to deposit 10% of the total loan liability as on today, within a period of 15 days and it will submit "one-time settlement proposal" in terms of Bank's Policy within the same period and this writ petition may be disposed of,directing the respondent-Bank to accept the same. 3. Mr. Naba Kumar Bose, Chief Manager (SAMB), SBI Patna and Mr. Ravi Kumar Sahu, Deputy Manager, Zonal Office, Ranchi are present in the Court. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-SBI, on instruction from the officers present in the Court, submits that if the petitioner submits its offer for one-time settlement, strictly in terms of the Bank's Policy and deposits 10% of the total loan liability as on today, within 15 days, the auction sale notice dated 13.01.2015 published on 14.01.2015 shall be kept in abeyance. 5. At this stage, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent-SBI to return the title deed of property which has not been mortgaged with the Bank. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that there is no reason why the original title deed of a property which has not been mortgaged, would be deposited with the Bank however, if on verification it is found that title deed of any property which has not been mortgaged to the Bank, in connection with the present loan account or any other loan account, the said document would be returned to the petitioner within 15 days. 7. In view of the above submissions, I am not required to look into the merits of the matter or to decide the maintainability of the writ petition. The present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to deposit 10% of the total loan liability as on today, within 15 days from 09.03.2015 and to submit its proposal for the one-time settlement of the loan account in terms of Bank's Policy. If the petitioner complies with its undertaking as noticed above, the respondent-Bank shall not proceed with the auction sale notice dated 13.01.2015. It is ordered that if, the petitioner fails to deposit 10% of the total loan amount as indicated above, the respondent-Bank shall proceed with the auction sale notice dated 13.01.2015. It is further ordered that if, the petitioner commits default in making subsequent payment, in terms of onetime settlement approved by the Bank, the respondent-Bank would be at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms."
(3.) The writ petitioner has now challenged the aforesaid order.;