IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 780 OF 2024 Ranjit Kumar Bisi …. Petitioner Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Advocate -versus- Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Sambalpur and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Dey, Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 13.02.2025 06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Notice on Opposite Party No.4 issued through special messenger was refused to receive by him as per the report of the Special Messenger at Flag-F. Hence, notice on Opposite Party No.4 is treated to be sufficient. 3. The Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to assail the e-auction sale notice under Annexure-2 issued by the Authorized Officer, Indian Bank Zonal Office, Sambalpur putting the property in question to auction. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that sale notice as required under Section 13(4) was not issued to the Petitioner before putting the property to auction. Although value of the property is more than rupees two crores, it has been auctioned at a throw away price of Rs.85.50 lakh in favour of sole bidder-Opposite Party No.4 Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Feb-2025 18:46:03 Signature Not Verified (Yogesh Sharma). Opposite Party No.4 being the sole bidder, the bank could not have proceeded for e-auction pursuant to notice under Annexure 2. 5. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the Indian Bank submits that outstanding loan dues of the Petitioner was Rs.40,07,536/- as on 1st December, 2023. The property has been sold at a price of Rs.85.50 lakh and sale certificate has already been issued in favour of Opposite Party No.4. 6. At this stage, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition seeking liberty to avail remedy under Section 17(1) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act,2002) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with an observation that if the Petitioner, so advised, may avail remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack for redressal of his grievance. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) s.s.satapathy/Ranjeeta Judge