ORDER : 1. This civil writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “(i) That the auction notice dated 2.12.2022 (Annex.14) and auction proceeding 21.01.22 and possession notice dated 21.1.2023 is illegal and required strict action and liable to be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the auction dated 21.12.2022 may kindly be cancelled for petitioner property and respondent may be directed not to proceed for sale finalization of the subject property and asset should be restored in favour of the petitioner and maintain status quo during the pendency of the matter till the final decision. (iii) Possession notice dated 21.01.2023, may kindly be stayed and cancelled and during the pendency of the matter no coercive action should be taken against the property of the petitioner. (iv) The Respondents may be directed to regularize the petitioner account and take out of NPA by accepting the overdue amount and continue the account or reschedule the loan account for entire appropriate unpaid amount and may proceed for final settlement of the petitioner loan account as Hon’ble Court deems just appropriate. (v) That the Respondent may be directed to bear the legal expenses because of the unethical harassment of the petitioner. (vi) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may kindly be passed.” 2. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the petitioner No.1 (henceforth referred to as ‘the petitioner’), in connection with his business needs, availed loan facilities from the respondent-Bank; such loans, as per the petitioner, were duly repaid by him. 3. In the month of July 2009, the petitioner was sanctioned and advanced a term loan, to the tune of Rs.15,80,000/-, by the respondent-Bank, for the petitioner’s business requirements; the petitioner duly adhered to the terms and conditions, mentioned in the agreement pertaining to the said loan, and had made timely repayment of the loan installments. However, thereafter, due to certain adverse market conditions, the petitioner was not able to deposit some amount in the concerned bank account, whereupon the respondent-Bank informed the petitioner that his account is going to be classified as NPA; the petitioner immediately approached the Manager of the respondent-Bank, and deposited the amount of Rs.1,43,327/-and Rs.36,673/-on 17.07.2019; whereafter, the petitioner was informed by the respondent-Bank that since the overdue amount has been deposited, the account of the petitioner shall be regularized. 4. 4. On 17.10.2019, when the petitioner visited the respondent-Bank to deposit an amount of Rs.70,000/-in the loan account, the then Bank Manager did not permit the petitioner to do so, while asking the petitioner to deposit the entire outstanding amount. Thereafter, in the month of January 2020, the petitioner arranged some more funds and visited the respondent-Bank with a request to permit him to deposit the overdue amount in the loan account, but the Bank Manager refused to permit the petitioner to do so and asked the petitioner to repay the entire outstanding amount of loan. 5. The petitioner further averred that thereafter, on account of onslaught of Covid-19 pandemic, complete lock down was declared by the government, and accordingly, all the business activities were closed down; owing to such onslaught, vide circulars dated 27.03.2020, 17.04.2020 and 22.05.2020 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the asset classification norms were redefined and a direction was given to all the Banks for extending sympathetic treatment, like extension of moratorium facility etc., to the borrowers of the loan(s). 6. However, despite the above, the respondent-Bank issued a notice dated 08.11.2019 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2002’) (as amended from time to time), purporting to compel the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.16,23,044.51, within a period of 60 days from the date of issuance of the said notice; however, such notice was not served upon the petitioner. 7. On 29.07.2020, the respondent-Bank issued and sent another notice under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 stating therein that the respondent-Bank has taken possession of the property land and building, which belonged to the petitioner, comprising plot No.04 Reti Stand, near Sub City Centre, Central Area, Udaipur admeasuring 600 square feet, without duly following the legal and mandatory requirement of publication of such notice in two daily newspapers, having wide circulation in the area concerned. 8. The respondent-Bank thereafter instituted a suit for recovery against the petitioner, before the learned Commercial Court, Udaipur seeking to recover an amount of Rs.17,92,769/-from the petitioner, wherein summon for mediation was issued. 9. 8. The respondent-Bank thereafter instituted a suit for recovery against the petitioner, before the learned Commercial Court, Udaipur seeking to recover an amount of Rs.17,92,769/-from the petitioner, wherein summon for mediation was issued. 9. The petitioner further averred in the petition that despite the aforesaid, the respondent-Bank, in collusion with the local property dealers, was adamant to sell the property of the petitioner at a much lower price, so as to cause grave financial loss to the petitioner. 10. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank also issued an auction notice dated 11.01.2021, purporting to subject the property of the petitioner to auction on 18.02.2021 for a meagre reserve price of Rs.57,24,000/-, despite the current market price of the subject property being more than rupees one crore. 11. The petitioner aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent-Bank filed an appeal, on 12.02.2021, before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur alongwith a request of stay, but the learned DRT posted the matter on 24.03.2021. However, in the meanwhile, the respondent-Bank vide another auction notice dated 20.02.2021, rescheduled the date of auction to 18.03.2021. 11.1 The petitioner filed an IA on 11.03.2021 seeking stay of the auction dated 18.03.2021, and again on 18.03.2021, the learned DRT posted the matter on 23.03.2021. However, on 23.03.2021, the learned DRT, on the submission of the respondent-Bank, ordered that since no bid was received, therefore, the IA has become infructuous. 11.2. The respondent-Bank, while taking advantage of the situation, issued another notice dated 24.03.2021 of auction and the date of auction was fixed as 19.04.2021 12. In the aforesaid backdrop, as per the petitioner, he has made several representations/requests before the respondent-Bank and other appropriate authorities/forums, but even such endeavours of the petitioner were failed, and therefore, the present petition has been preferred before this Hon’ble Court, claiming the aforementioned reliefs. 13. The petitioner present in person submitted that apart from the aforementioned sincere endeavours on his part, he has also requested the respondent-Bank, to permit him to execute a rent agreement for his shop, so as to enable him to receive rent therefrom, and such entire rent shall be deposited in the loan account of the petitioner, but such request was also denied by the respondent-Bank, while impressing upon deposition of the entire outstanding due amount of loan. As per the petitioner present in person, in the said series of inaction, the respondent-Bank also did not adhere to their obligation to take the account of the petitioner, out of the NPA, in view of the fact that at the relevant time, the petitioner has deposited the overdue amount. 14. The petitioner present in person further submitted that except the property in question, the petitioner has no other property to earn livelihood and to extend financial support to his family. 15. The petitioner present in person thus submitted that the respondent-Bank has taken the impugned actions only with a view to auction the property of the petitioner, that too, while keeping a very meagre sum, as a reserve price. 16. The petitioner present in person, thus concluded his arguments by submitting the inaction on the part of the respondents is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law, being suffering from malafide, so as to harass the petitioner. 17. The petitioner present in person relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of E.K. Rajan Vs. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank (WP (C) 27485/2021, decided on 18.05.2022). 18. Heard the petitioner present in person and perused the judgment cited by him. 19. This Court finds that there is a clear default on the part of the petitioner in making the repayment of complete outstanding amount of loan obtained by him from the respondent-Bank. Furthermore, the remedy, as availed by him, in the given factual matrix, against the invocation and applicability of the Act of 2002, is not an appropriate remedy. 19.1 However, yesterday i.e. on 07.02.2023, when the case was being argued, this Court put a specific and pertinent query to the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing on that date, as to whether the petitioner is in a position and willing & ready to repay the complete due amount of loan, to which, learned counsel, while seeking time to obtain instructions, prayed for the matter to be listed today i.e. 08.02.2023. 19.2 The petitioner present in person today i.e. 08.02.2023 before this Court clearly shows his inability to repay the entire due amount of loan, as advanced to him by the respondent-Bank. 20. 19.2 The petitioner present in person today i.e. 08.02.2023 before this Court clearly shows his inability to repay the entire due amount of loan, as advanced to him by the respondent-Bank. 20. This Court is thus of the opinion that though the petitioner has made several efforts, including several representations etc., but as observed above, none of the remedies were appropriate so as to effectively enable the petitioner to thwart the invocation and applicability of the Act of 2002 in the present case; furthermore, instead of doing so, the petitioner ought to have made sincere efforts to repay the entire outstanding loan amount, but he clearly failed to do so. Today i.e. 08.03.2023 also, when such an opportunity, at the time of hearing of the petition, was given to the petitioner by this Court, so as to enable him to get the appropriate relief from this Court and to set at rest the entire controversy, he failed to avail the same, while showing his inability to repay the complete due amount of loan to the respondent-Bank. 21. This Court also observes that the petitioner has alleged, amongst others, malafide on the part of the respondent-Bank, but he clearly failed to prove the same, and in absence of any proof in that regard, as per the settled legal proposition, he is not entitled to get the relief, as prayed for, in this petition. 22. This Court further observes that once the petitioner has taken loan from the respondent-Bank, he was under a legal obligation to repay the same in time, while duly adhering to the terms and conditions mentioned in the loan agreement, but the petitioner also did not do so. Thus, in view of a clear default on the part of the petitioner himself, he is not entitled for the relief prayed for in the present petition. 23. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, more particularly, keeping in view, the inability of the petitioner to repay the entire outstanding amount of loan, this Court is of the firm opinion that at this stage, no case for making any interference by this Court is made out. 24. The judgment cited by the petitioner present in person does not render any assistance to his case. 25. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.