Prashantakumar Maiti v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.09.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.No.20102 of 2019

1. Prashantakumar Maiti

2. Sumitra Maity

...Petitioners

Vs.

1. The District Collector, Collectorate, Coimbatore 641 018.

2. The Authorised Officer, M/s.Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore 641 018.

...Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to refund the sale amount of Rs.1,01,70,000/- with interest in respect of property situated at Old T.S.No.7/3100, 7/3101 and New T.S.No.7/139/1 site No.9 of Ramakrishnapuram, Southern side of Chokkampudur road, Kumarapalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk with extent of 1755 sq. feet land along with construction of two floors.

For the Petitioners :

Mr.P.Saravanan For the Respondents :

Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondent no.1 :

Ms.Uma Sudha for respondent no.2

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the petitioners purchasing a property from the respondent secured creditor at an e-auction conducted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in the year 2018, possession of the property

has not been made over to the petitioners despite the full consideration being paid by the petitioners to the secured creditor.

2. Pursuant to the previous direction and costs being tendered in terms thereof, the secured creditor has filed its affidavit and the papers to be relied upon. The secured creditor refers to the e-auction notice of October 24, 2010. Though at the second paragraph of the document it is indicated that "the Authorised Officer of the Bank has taken Possession of the property", the secured creditor says that it was only symbolic possession that was taken as clause 11 of the document clearly indicated that the sale was to be made on "as is where is and as is what is" basis. The secured creditor suggests that it was incumbent on every bidder to ascertain the condition of the property, particularly since the disclaimer in clause 11 of the terms indicated that the bank was taking no responsibility in respect of the property.

3. It is the further submission of the secured creditor that its request under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is pending with the District Collector, Coimbatore and has not been attended to for months and years together. The secured creditor submits that the District Collector may be guided by the fact that the borrowers' appeal is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the borrowers' representation in such regard may have been, erroneously or otherwise, taken cognisance of by the relevant Collector.

4. Repeated orders have been passed by this Court that authorities in receipt of requests under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 must act with promptitude. It has also been made clear in repeated orders that the authority in receipt of a request under Section 14 of the said Act does not exercise any adjudicatory functions. Amended Section 14 of the Act requires certain declarations to be furnished by a secured creditor to entitle the secured creditor to obtain executive assistance to reach the secured immovable property or the documents pertaining thereto. The authority in receipt of the request has merely to see that the declarations are in order and accept them at face value before deciding what reasonable assistance may be rendered, whether by directing the local revenue authorities or the police authorities to ensure that the secured asset or the documents pertaining thereto are accessed by the secured creditor.

5. It appears that the interest of the petitioners would be best served if the District Collector, Coimbatore is directed to dispose of the respondent bank's request under Section 14 of the said Act filed on November 17, 2017 as expeditiously as

possible, and, preferably within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. It will be open to the petitioners and the respondent bank to bring this order to the notice of the first respondent immediately, and the bank will be obliged to do so within a week from date. The bank should also forward copies of previous orders of this Court indicating the duties of authorities in receipt of requests under Section 14 of the said Act. It is hoped that the petitioners' grievance is taken care of upon appropriate assistance being rendered by the first respondent to the respondent secured creditor. However, any further grievance of the petitioners would have to be carried to the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law.

6. W.P.No.20102 of 2019 is disposed of without any order as to costs. W.M.P.No.19572 of 2019 is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tar To:

1. The District Collector, Collectorate, Coimbatore 641 018.

2. The Authorised Officer, M/s.Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore 641 018.

+1cc to Mr.P.Saravanan, Advocate, S.R.No.45580 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.45502 W.P.No.20102 of 2019 SRA[co] NSK 14/09/2021