JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the auction notice dated 10.08.2018. ii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for the One Time Settlement. iii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 2. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner took a housing loan of Rs. 26,00,000/- from the respondents Bank on 11.09.2013. In lieu thereof, the petitioner mortgaged his title deeds for the property. After getting the loan, petitioner continued to deposit the loan installments and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,64,000/-, but thereafter failed to deposit the loan installments, hence, the account was declared as NPA and a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioner by the Bank. 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ICICI Bank Limited Etc. Vs Umakanta Mohapatra Etc., Civil Appeal No. 10243-12250/2018, in very strong words, has deprecated the tendency of the subordinate courts as well as the High Court in entertaining the matters arising under the SARFAESI Act and in granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). Order of Hon'ble Apex Court is reproduced hereunder; “Delay condoned. Leave granted. Despite several judgment of this Court, including a judgment by Hon'ble Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. Vs. Travancore and Anr. Vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 , the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of four recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgment of this Court, held as follows:- “18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already notice in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of four recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgment of this Court, held as follows:- “18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already notice in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd and Another, (1997) 6 SCC 450 , observing:- “32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops."" The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all order passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside. …" 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is not maintainable. Same is accordingly dismissed. 5. No order as to cost.