2025:UHC:353 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 09TH JANUARY, 2025 WRIT PETITION NO.3307 OF 2024 (M/S) Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Nainital and Others ……Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Taniya Kapoor, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Devendra Singh No. 1 Bohra, Standing Counsel. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no. 1/ District Magistrate, Nainital, to decide the Cases titled as "Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Limited v. Mohan Chandra Palaria & Ors." filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 expeditiously within a period to be determined by this Hon'ble Court; II. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. III. Award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” 2025:UHC:353 2 2. Heard Ms. Taniya Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devendra Singh Bohra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1. 3. Ms. Taniya Kapoor, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered as a Housing Finance Institution under the National Housing Bank, 1987, is a notified Company under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, “Act, 2002”). The respondent no.2 and 3 had taken loan of Rs.17 Lakh bearing loan amount no.LP0000000135212 against the property, as mentioned in paragraph no.5. The loan amount was classified as NPA on 05.06.2024. The petitioner issued a demand notice dated 20.06.2024 under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules to the respondent nos.2 and 3. The respondent nos.2 and 3 did not comply with the term of the said notice. On 28.09.2024, the petitioner had taken symbolic possession. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent no.1, the District Magistrate, Nainital under Section 14 of the Act, 2002. The said petition is still 2025:UHC:353 3 pending. 4. Learned counsel for the State has requested two weeks’ time to decide the petition of the petitioner, filed under Section 14 of the Act, 2002. 5. With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no.1, the District Magistrate, Nainital to pass suitable order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but, not later than two weeks’ from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 09.01.2025 Pant/ PANKAJ KUMAR PANT Digitally signed by PANKAJ KUMAR PANT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=9bb5448b4a92c65bab85a1384e98c8e23962296e78d4821a6ec01b408aa193c8, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=4FA443614ABEBC1A2C417A645E31B2B4B9D897811D160D334C31AA4BA6D48D32, cn=PANKAJ KUMAR PANT Date: 2025.01.09 19:44:35 +05'30'