Sujit Narayan Prasad,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for the following directions: (A) For a direction upon the Respondent No.1 to forthwith allow the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of One Time Settlement (OTS) dated 29.06.2017 approved by the Respondent o.1 vide its Letter dated 29.06.2018 (wrongly typed as 29.06.2017) (Annexure-6), according to which the petitioner is required to make payment of the OTS amount to the tune of Rs.6.75 Crores by September, 2019, out of which an amount of Rs.1.00 Crore has been paid and balance 5.75 Crores is required to be paid by September, 2019. (B) For a direction upon the Respondent No.1 not to proceed with the auction sale and its confirmation of the leasehold property of the petitioner, situated at Plot no.B-33, City Centre, Sector IV, Bokaro Steel City, allotted to the petitioner by the Respondent- SAIL (Respondent no.3) on lease, which was mortgaged to the Respondent no.1 on the basis of a Tripartite Agreement dated 25.10.2005 (Annexure-1), the period of which has already been expired on 10.03.2009 itself. (C) For quashing and setting aside the entire auction proceeding held by the Respondent no.1 with regard to the aforesaid leasehold property situated at Plot No.B-33, City Centre, Sector IV, Bokaro Steel City, as the same has been sold much below the reserve price i.e. at Rs.2.90 Crores, whereas the reserve price fixed in the Public e-auction Notice dated 02.03.2019 (Annexure-9) was Rs.3.41 Crores, with a provision to increase the bid price by Rs.5.00 lacs in the said auction.
(2.) Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of the availability of remedy available under SARFAESI Act, 2002 wherein as per the provision made under Section 17 the borrower/petitioner is to approach before it. His further submission is that the writ petition has been filed at the stage when the sale certificate has already been issued in favour of another petitioner on 06.04.2019 in pursuance to second auction notice which was notified after failure of the first auction and, therefore, at this stage this Court may not interfere in exercise of power conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) He has referred the judgment render by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 (United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors.), (2018) 3 SCC 85 (Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. vs. Mathew K.C), (2012) 1 SCC 656 (Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Limited (2) through Director vs. State of Haryana and Anr.).;