Anil Singh vs Uttarakhand State Co-Operative Bank Ltd

Ravindra Maithani, J

By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned demand notice dated 29-4-2021 issued by respondent bank against the petitioner (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition); and further, quashing the impugned order of symbolic possession issued by respondent bank over the property of the petitioner mortgaged with the respondent bank (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent bank not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in the garb of the impugned demand notice issued by respondent bank (Annexure No.4 to this writ petition).

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondents to make easy instalments of loan amount of the petitioner.

(iv) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction of any nature in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.

(v) award the cost of writ petition in favour petitioner.”

It is the case of the petitioner that he took house loan of Rs.15 Lakh on 29.08.2017. The petitioner paid the instalments initially, but thereafter, due to COVID-19 Pandemic, he could not deposit the instalments. The proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”). The Notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.04.2021. It was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2266 of 2021 (“the first writ petition”). The first writ petition was decided on 28.10.2021 with the liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the Competent Authority in the Bank within one week from today. The respondent Bank has also taken symbolic possession of the property on 07.12.2021.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the first petition, the petitioner was given liberty to make a representation which the petitioner could not make. He is not financially sound. He wanted to repay the loan. He had already paid Rs.2 lakh. He also gave a cheque of Rs. 2 Lakh to the respondent Bank, but they did not encash the cheque and instead taken symbolic possession the property.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that, in fact, the petitioner had no remedy left now. If he wants to challenge the proceedings under the Act, he could avail it before the appropriate forum. The writ petition is not maintainable.

This Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner as to which right of the petitioner has been affected? What redress he seeks from this Court? To it learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded that no legal right as such of the petitioner has been defeated or violated. It is argued that still the petitioner is not in a position to pay the loan. He seeks for some more time.

Proceedings under the Act had already been initiated against the petitioner. In the first writ petition, the petitioner was given a liberty, which he did not avail. Symbolic possession has already been taken of the property. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. However, this Court would like to make it clear that, if the petitioner is desirous of making payment, undoubtedly, the respondent Bank would not proceed to take coercive steps to recover the amount, if request made by the petition appears to be genuine and bonafide.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.