HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2386 of 2025 (M/S) Sunita Devi ….......Petitioner Vs. District Magistrate Pithoragarh and another …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the UCO Bank/respondent no.2. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks directions to refrain the respondents from effecting the sale of the residential property of the petitioner situated at Village Takana, District Pithoragarh. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she has taken a loan from the Bank for construction of her house. She could not repay the installments on time. In the meanwhile when she was out of station in connection with her treatment, the respondents in haste without following the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) attempted to auction the property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a poor woman; she has taken loan for construction of her house; she is ready and willing to settle the dispute with the bank; her house has been purportedly auctioned. Therefore, the further proceedings may be stopped. 2 5. Learned counsel for the UCO Bank would submit that as per ground (g) of the writ petition itself the property has already been sold by the respondent bank; now only remedy remains under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. The SARFAESI Act is a self contained Act. It is the claim of the petitioner that property has already been sold in the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the petitioner may seek his remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 7. In view of the alternate efficacious remedy, this Court is of the view that the petition may not be entertained. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the state of admission itself. 8. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.08.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4 d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A 84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.08.19 15:14:17 +05'30'