2025:UHC:5937 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.2653 of 2022 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Ayush Gaur, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the auction purchaser/intervener. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court by judgment and order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No(s) 4615-4616 of 2023 directed the appellant, who is petitioner herein, to furnish all the information about auction and the auction purchaser to the learned Advocate-on-Record for the first respondent within a period of 10 days and on the date of appearance fixed before the High Court, permission shall be granted by the High Court to the first respondent to implead the auction purchaser as a party to the writ petition. The first respondent, as per the Hon’ble Apex Court’s order, is the Bank. Simultaneously, the Hon’ble Apex also directed the High Court to permit the appellant to file counter/reply to the writ petition and will decide the writ petition afresh in accordance with law. The order was forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial) to ensure that the writ petition be restored. 5. By disposing of the SLP, the Hon’ble Apex Court also setaside both the impugned order dated 21.10.2022 and 07.01.2023 passed by this Court in this writ petition. 6. On perusal of the order sheet, it reveals that after the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 20.11.2024, Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, put his appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 13.12.2024 then on 27.03.2025 and on both the date, Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal sought time to file an impleadment application, thereafter, the matter was listed on 26.04.2025, but Mr. 2025:UHC:5937 Atul Kumar Bansal was not present on that day. 7. Today, Mr. Ayush Gaur holding brief of Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks further time to file an impleadment application. This Court in the previous order dated 26.04.2025 observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order was not complied with by the petitioner, however, on that day, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the auction purchaser, put his appearance and since the petitioner did not comply with the order within the time as stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in such an eventuality, Mr. Sanjay Kumar was given liberty to move proper application for intervening in the matter. 8. In compliance thereof, now the intervention application has been moved by Mr. Sanjay Kumar to represent the auction purchaser. 9. Now it has been apprised to this Court by Mr. Ayush Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the counsel for the petitioner is not in the contact with the petitioner, therefore, the impleadment application could not be moved. 10. Be that as it may, the time, as stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court has already been expired, therefore, there is no any occasion to give further time to the petitioner to move an application particularly when the auction purchaser come forward through an Advocate who has already moved an intervention application for the purposes of intervening in the matter. 11. In such an eventuality, the intervention application is allowed keeping in view that the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the petitioner to implead the auction purchaser as a party respondent. 12. Mr. Parikshit Saini, who appears for the Bank, submits that in this writ petition, the petitioner prayed for OTS (One Time Settlement) and on the OTS, the bank already settled for an amount of Rs. 83,11,918/-(Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs 2025:UHC:5937 Eleven Thousand and Nine Hundred Eighteen Rupees Only), but that settlement was not honoured by the petitioner, and by that him, the OTS Settlement already expired on 31.03.2022, therefore, as on date, there is no question of OTS (One Time Settlement) and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. I have found force on the submission as advanced by Mr. Parikshit Saini. 14. Taking into consideration that in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court, now the auction purchaser is in the Court and moved an intervention application, therefore, in such an eventuality, when the auction purchaser participate in the auction proceeding initiated by the Bank, this Court is of the view that the interest of auction purchaser should be taken into consideration. 15. Undisputedly, the auction proceeding was initiated by the Bank, which was already concluded and the amount of consideration towards the auction was already deposited by the auction purchaser with the bank, but up till date, the sale has not been confirmed. 16. Since the Subject matter of the instant petition is almost rendered infructuous, and, furthermore, the Court cannot adjudicate the issue, particularly, when the petitioner has not complied with the Hon’ble Apex Court’s order, therefore, in such an eventuality, the Bank is directed to proceed with the confirmation of the sale of the auction purchaser and if there is balance amount the bank can proceed as per law to recover the same against the petitioner. 17. Subject to the observation and direction as above, the present writ petition is finally disposed of. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 09.07.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:5937