Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1909 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. The Collector

2008-08-11

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for orders on an application being I.A.No. 9269/2008 under Art. 226(3) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the arguments on the application as well as on the writ petition are one and same and therefore, the writ petition may also be finally heard and decided. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally heard and decided. 2. By the instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the order Annex.2 dated 10.04.2008 passed by respondent State Bank of India has been challenged. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It appears that the petitioners took a loan from the respondent Bank which was to be paid in installments, however, the petitioners failed to pay the regular installments and therefore, by Annex.R/1 a notice purporting to be under Sec. 13(4)(a) of the Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short. The Act of 2002' hereinafter) was issued. The petitioners having failed to comply with the notice, a notice for possession (Annex.R/2) has been issued on 17.11.2007. By order Annex.2 dated 10.04.2008, the District Collector, Bikaner under Sec. 14 of the Act of 2002 directed the petitioners to pay the amount else the possession of the assets will be taken over. That order came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of instant writ petition. 5. By interim order dated 01.05.2008 the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within ten days with the respondent bank. Even at the time of issuance of notice, the writ petition was entertained only on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioners are ready to pay entire amount of Rs. 4,07,275/-. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as directed by this Court by order dated 01.05.2008, the petitioners failed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/-. Even according to the case of the petitioners, the petitioners wanted to deposit the outstanding amount in three equal instalments of three months each and that also fell due on 01.08.2008 as per the version of the petitioners yet the petitioners failed to pay any amount. Even according to the case of the petitioners, the petitioners wanted to deposit the outstanding amount in three equal instalments of three months each and that also fell due on 01.08.2008 as per the version of the petitioners yet the petitioners failed to pay any amount. This shows that the petitioners are not serious in refunding the amount due and therefore, the respondents are entitled to realise the amount by taking over the assets under the Act of 2002 and put them to auction. In the circumstances, therefore, no case for interference for invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. The application being I.A. No. 9269/ 2008 stands allowed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******