Arun Mahato v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6170 of 2023 ====================================================== Arun Mahato S/o Sri Dinesh Mahato Resident of Village- Mahua Singh Rai, Kalighar Road, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, 2.

The Indian Bank through the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Mahua Singh Rai Branch, P.O. and P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali, 3.

The Indian Bank through the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office Patna, Budh Marg, Patna- 800001.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raghwendra Kumar ( SC22 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 01-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking setting aside of the E-Auction sale notice dated 27.03.2023. It is submitted that E-Auction is going to be held on 02.05.2023 with regard to the mortgaged house and landed property. From the narration of the facts stated in the writ application, it appears that the petitioner had taken financial assistance from the India Bank, Mahua Singh Rai Branch, P.S. - Mahua, District - Vaishali for construction of a house but he admittedly failed to repay his loan and his account became a Non-Performing Asset (in short "NPA").

The Bank has initiated action under Section 13(2) of

Patna High Court CWJC No.6170 of 2023(2) dt.01-05-2023 2/2 the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act, 2002"). The writ application is silent about what happened to his reply to the notice under Section 13(2) and the other follow up action, however it appears that at this stage the Bank has proceeded with the E-Auction sale. The petitioner has a statutory remedy against the sale notice before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. This Court would, therefore, not entertain this Writ Application. It is dismissed, accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Rajeev/- U