Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20208 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2024 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Dinesh Jain And Sons Thru. Proprietor Mr. Dinesh Jain And Another Respondent :- Indian Bank Thru. Authorized Officer Lko. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Agarwal,Saksham Agarwal,Shailendra Singh Rajawat Counsel for Respondent :- Krishan Kanhaya Pal Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the DRT. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that aggrieved against the action of the Bank in trying to auction the properties, a Securitization Appeal No.160 of 2025 was preferred. Along with the said, an interim application was also moved. In the said interim application, an order came to be passed on 20.02.2025 by the DRT, recording that in case the respondent-Bank conducts the auction sale on 21.02.2025, the same shall not be confirmed till the next date. The next date was fixed for 04.04.2025. In the meanwhile, rejoinder was also directed to be filed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that after passing of the said order, an application came to be filed by the Bank seeking vacation of the order dated 20.02.2025. On the said application, the same was taken up on 03.04.2025 and it was directed that the same be placed on the date fixed, which was 04.04.2025, the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner was extended till the next date. Subsequently, on 04.04.2025, when the matter came to be heard, an order was passed recording that this court had passed an order on 20.02.2025. It was further recorded that the DRT did not find any urgency at this stage and proceeded to dispose of both the IAs and directed that the matter may be finally decided. It was further provided that any action of the respondent-Bank would be subject to final outcome of the present S.A. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no application of mind on the interim application filed by the petitioner or the objections given by the Bank and abruptly, without there being any application of mind, the IAs have been disposed of. He argues that the earlier order dated 20.02.2025 was passed after prima facie considering the case as pleaded by the petitioner. There is no mention in the order dated 04.04.2025 that the averments made in the IAs were liable to be rejected. He argues that even the case as pleaded by the Bank was not considered while passing the order dated 04.04.2025. 6. He thus argues that the order dated 04.04.2025 suffers from non-application of mind and thus is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank justifies the order dated 04.04.2025 by arguing that all the facts were placed before the DRT and after seeing all the records, the order came to be passed on 04.04.2025, as such, there cannot be any error in the said order. He further argues that against the said order also, an appeal is prescribed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which should be availed by the petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is well settled that an appeal is prescribed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. However, any error/infraction in the decision making process, is always subject to supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The manner in which, the order has been passed on 04.04.2025 without even considering the respective submissions of either of the parties and disposing of both the IAs cannot be accepted as a valid decision making process. It is well settled that the reasoning is heart and soul of any judicial/quasi judicial order for even an administrative order. 9. Finding the order dated 04.04.2025 being without any reason, the same cannot be sustained and is quashed. 10. The matter is remanded to the DRT to pass fresh order on the IA filed by the petitioner, being IA No.1203 of 2025 after taking into consideration the defence that may be taken by the Bank in their counter affidavit or the submissions made by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit, which is informed that have already been filed. The fresh orders as directed above shall be passed within a period of three weeks from today. The DRT shall also endeavour to decide the entire S.A. itself. 11. This Court also notices that when the order dated 20.02.2025 was passed, the counter affidavit of the Bank was already on record and was also considered while passing the order dated 20.02.2025. 12. Till the fresh orders are passed, the auction sale shall not be confirmed by the respondent. 13. The petition is allowed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench