HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34501 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Shree Ram Pandey, holding brief of Shri Shree Rung Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Atma Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for Union of India; Shri Anil Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the bank and, Shri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief: "(I) Issue the writ order or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.3.2025 passed by the Respondent no.2 as contained in annexure no.1 to this writ petition as well as the further action in pursuance of the auction sale notice published in the news paper dated 15.7.2025 as contained in annexure 2 to this writ petition. (II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No.3 & 4 Bank not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioners over the property Mortgaged with the Bank i.e. the residential house comprised of plot no.13 and 14 Khet no.636 (House no.432) situate at Ghoghra Pipariya near Modern village Nainital Road Tehsil and Distt Bareilly bounded by : East : Road, West : Plot of Ram Avar, North : plot no.14 and house of Vimla Devi, by South : plot of Jewan Singh Sunahri Devi." 3. At the outset, Shri Bajpai has raised preliminary objection that the auction sale has been concluded on 30.07.2025. Therefore, no indulgence is warranted on merits. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shree Rung Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anil Kumar Bajpai, Ashish Agrawal, Atma Prakash Tripathi, C.S.C. Anjali Vastra Udyog Through Its Proprietor Smt Neeraj Kumari And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The above objection has been met on the strength of an order dated 13.11.2024 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Writ - C No. 34900 of 2024 (Sunil Yadav vs The Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda). That order reads as below: "1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondent-bank. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent bank to accept the amount mentioned in the auction sale notice dated 28.08.2024 published on 31.8.2024 in news paper financial express." 3. Counsel appearing for the sole respondent-bank has no objection to the grant of relief prayed for in the writ petition. 4. Under the circumstances, this petition is disposed of granting the petitioner 10 days' time to deposit the amount as mentioned in the auction sale notice dated 28.8.2024 along with the necessary addition. 5. In case of default, the petitioner will not be entitled to any benefit granted under this order." 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the prayer made cannot be granted in view of the settled position in law that no interference is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after publication of auction sale notice. Here, not only that auction notice was published long ago, but according to the petitioner itself, auction sale was held and concluded on 30.07.2025. The order relied by learned counsel for the petitioner does not lay down any law. Discretion was exercised in that matter. 6. We find itself disabled from exercising such discretion, in view of the clear position in law. 7. In view of the above, interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to avail their statutory remedies in accordance with law. October 10, 2025 Prakhar WRIC No. 34501 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad