Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18958-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1058 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prathma Up Gramin Bank Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief : "Issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the illegal impugned order dated 04.11.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 in case No. RST/1424/2024 having Computerized Case No. D202413380001424 (Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank Versus Shri Phajulak And Others) by which Respondent No.2 recall his earlier order dated 25.08.2023 passed under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (Act No.54 of 2002)." 3. When the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act were commenced, the bank intending to take possession of the property in question moved an application under Section 14 of the Act, which was decided on 25th August, 2023. In the meantime, the borrower had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal which had on 13.01.2023 passed an order to the effect that if the borrower deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- then no coercive action would be taken against the borrower. Despite the knowledge about that order, the Additional Collector, Amroha passed the order dated 25th August, 2023. When the borrower approached the Additional Collector, Amroha and made him aware of the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 13th January, 2023 then the order dated 25th August, 2023 was recalled on 04th November, 2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-bank submitted that the Additional Collector under Section 14 could not have recalled the order on the ground that the borrower had not been heard. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that when an apparent error was discovered by the Additional Collector in the order dated 25th August, 2023 that he had not considered the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 13.01.2023, then he committed no error at all by recalling the order dated 25.08.2023 on 04.11.2024. Even if the impugned order is bad in law, since it rectified an apparent error we are not inclined to interfere in the instant writ petition. 6. It was also the duty of the bank to have informed the Additional Collector about the order which had been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The bank should also have informed about the fact that the borrower had complied with the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in as much as he had deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- and therefore no coercive action could be taken against him. 7. Under such circumstances no interference is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. Needless to mention that the petitioner can always approach the Additional Collector, Amroha for passing of a fresh order under Section 14 of the Act. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Virendra [Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.] [Siddharth Varma, J.] Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad