[2025:RJ-JP:16113] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5334/2025 1. Sudhangshu Kumar Biswas S/o Shrilaxman Chandra Biswas, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 276, Luharokamohalla, Moujamabad, District Jaipur (Rajashtan). 2. Smt. Sangeeta Biswas W/o Shri Sudhangshu Kumar Biswas, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of 276, Luharo Ka Mohalla, Moujamabad, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Kogta Financials (India) Ltd, Through Its Manager, Registered Office Kogta House, Azad Mohalla, Bijainagar, Rajasthan 305624. 2. Kogta Financials (India) Ltd., Through Its Branch Manager, Corporate Office S-1 Gopalari, Near Ajmer Pulia, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 143, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302001. 3. Prahlad Sahay Jat S/o Shri Hardev Ram Jat, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Hanutpura, Khora Ladkhani, P.o. Gathwadi, Manoharpur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mamraj Jat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the sale certificate dated 10.02.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before conducting the sale proceedings of the premises of the petitioners, the provisions contained under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act, 2002”) were not [2025:RJ-JP:16113] (2 of 3) [CW-5334/2025] followed and straightaway, the property of the petitioners has been sold out. 3. Counsel submits that before approaching this Court, petitioners have submitted an application before the respondents on 10.03.2025, wherein a prayer was made for providing all the relevant documents, on the basis of which, the sale proceedings have been initiated against him. 4. Counsel submits that in spite of passing of considerable time, till date, the application filed by the petitioners has not been decided by the respondents, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. This Court cannot believe that before initiating the sale proceedings against the petitioners, the respondents have not followed the procedure & provisions contained under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Be that as it may, the Court is not going into the controversy of the same, but looking to the fact that prior to approaching this Court, the petitioners have submitted an application before the respondents for getting the relevant information/ documents on the basis of which the sale certification has been issued. The respondents are supposed to decide the application filed by the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing direction to the respondents to decide the application filed by the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order and in case, the requisite documents are supplied [2025:RJ-JP:16113] (3 of 3) [CW-5334/2025] to the petitioners, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail the remedy available to him, as provided under the law. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /39