Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18658-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1186 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sh. Ram Kishan Agarwal And 3 Others Respondent :- Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Dept. Of Financial Services And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Kumar Pandey,Dinesh Narayan Pandey,Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Digvijay Nath Dubey,Manu Dixit,Pushpila Bisht,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition was filed wayback in February, 2022. By mean of this petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of letter dated 15.01.2022 which is an auction notice regarding a sale to be held on 02.01.2022. However, the sale failed. As per Sri Sarvesh Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the Bank, prior to filing of this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged entire recovery proceedings including measures preferable to Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by filing a securitization application bearing No.646 of 2019 but this fact has not been disclosed in this writ petition. In any case, he says that the petition has outlived its utility as the sale could not be held. 3. In view of the aforesaid as we are convinced that the petition has outlived its utility, we, therefore, dismiss this petition as having become infructuous without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue the remedies already availed before the D.R.T., Lucknow under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 especially as the interim order which was passed on 06.04.2022 has itself become irrelevant as the auction was held on 02.01.2022 but did not fructify in a final settlement. As regards the contention of the petitioner's counsel that there is an interim order dated 06.04.2022 under which the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-, we are of the opinion that this does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner; firstly, as this order was taken by the petitioner by concealing the fact that the petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal prior to filing of this writ petition in respect of the same recovery proceedings, secondly, the subject matter of the petition was the sale proposed on 02.01.2022 which did not fructify, therefore, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this petition. The opposite party no. 2 - Bank where the aforesaid amount has been deposited shall return the said amount to the petitioner within one month. If the petitioner wants to settle the matter with the Bank, he can approach the Bank, but, so far as these proceedings are concerned, nothing survives for adjudication. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench