HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2968 of 2024 Rakam Singh ….....Petitioner Versus District Magistrate and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order passed under 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) passed by the respondent no.1/District Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. At the very outset, when the Court wanted to know as to how the writ petition is maintainable? Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proposes to approach respondent/Bank for one time settlement with an offer. Therefore, till the application is decided, the respondents may be directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Bank submits that if the petitioner approaches the respondents/Bank with one time settlement proposal, the respondents/Bank shall decide it 2 within a week. He submits that till that period, coercive steps may not be taken by the respondents/Bank in such contingency. 5. The writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the alternate efficacious remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. However, if the petitioner approaches the respondents/Bank within three working days from today (excluding today), with a onetime settlement proposal, the respondents/Bank shall consider and decide the proposal within a week. And till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 05.08.2025 Jitendra