M/s Satyam Prasad Bhandar Vs. The Deputy General Manager of Baroda and others. CWP No. 12538 of 2024 30.10.2025 Present: Mr.Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr.Shriyek Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, for the respondents. CMP No. 22988 of 2025 This application has been preferred seeking following reliefs:- “i. That the application to be preferred by the applicant/petitioner seeking quashing of the e-auction notice dated 5.8.2024 and any other consequential proceedings conducted in furtherance of the notice along with other prayers may kindly be permitted to be listed before Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh, in order to ensure a fair, just and unbiased adjudication of the controversy. ii. That the delay, if any, caused in preferring the said application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh due to the time taken in preferring the above-captioned writ petition i.e., CWP No. 12538 of 2024 may kindly be condoned, in the interest of justice. Iii. That the status quo order may kindly be passed in respect of the inventory/stock lying inside the Mortgaged Property until the application is preferred by the applicant/petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh, in the interest of justice equity and good consciousness.” 2. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner/applicant that there are three Benches of Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh and as the applicant is apprehending bias by first two Benches i.e. 1st and 2nd Benches, because petitioner/applicant has preferred a Contempt Petition against the Presiding Officer, who is heading Debt Recovery Tribunal Benches 1 and 2, Chandigarh. 3. Listing of matter before any Bench of the Tribunal is not within the ambit/scope and power of this Court, therefore, this prayer is not sustainable and accordingly, applicant/petitioner may approach appropriate authority for such prayer, as permissible under law. 4. Second prayer has been made for condoning of the time period consumed during pendency of Writ Petition CWP No. 12538 of 2024, dismissed by this Court, relegating the applicant/petitioner to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, as permissible under law. 5. This Court is not expected to exercise the power which has to be exercised by the Debt Recovery Tribunal concerned as the delay, if any, condonable under the provisions of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act or any other relevant law, has to be condoned by the concerned Court, which in present case is Debt Recovery Tribunal where the applicant has preferred or has to prefer an application in accordance with law. 6. So far as third prayer is concerned, once we have decided the Writ Petition, this Court is functus officio and thus we do not consider it fit to pass any such order at this stage, as prayed in third prayer. 7. Needless to say applicant/petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law for redressal of grievance including filing appropriate application for condonation of delay as well as interim relief/protection and in such eventuality appropriate Court/Tribunal has to consider such prayer(s) of the applicant/petitioner in accordance with law. 8. With aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Rakesh Kainthla), Judge. 30th October, 2025. (Keshav)