HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 837 of 2025 (M/S) Arshad Qadri ….....Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and another .….Respondents Present:- Mr. P.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The Petitioner has challenged e-auction sale notice dated 15.02.2025, which was sent to the petitioner on 17.02.2025 by the Authorized Officer of the respondent no. 1/Punjab National Bank. Some other ancillary reliefs have also been sought. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had taken total loan of Rs. 35,15,000/- from the respondent no. 1 Bank, which he could not repay regularly, therefore, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) were undertaken and notice was issued for auctioning the secured assets. It is impugned in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal but since the Presiding Office is not holding the court, the matter could not be taken up. He seeks indulgence of the Court so as to provide some time to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of 2 e-auction. It is argued that, in fact, the action under the SARFAESI Act” is devoid of statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 would submit that the action has already taken place and sale certificate has already been issued on 18.03.2025. He would submit that, in fact, in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner has not been appearing; on 10.05.2024, Securitisation Application No. 203 of 2023 filed by the petitioner was rejected in non-prosecution, which is Annexure 3 of the writ petition and when he filed a restoration application, in that proceedings the petitioner is also not appearing. He has referred to Annexure Nos. 5 & 6 to the writ petition. It is argued that, in fact, it is the intention of the petitioner to somehow delay the proceedings of recovery. 6. The SARFAESI Act is a self-contained Act. If a party is aggrieved by any action taken with regard to the secured assets, he can approach under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which the petitioner did. But, his SA No. 203 of 2023 was dismissed in non-prosecution on 10.05.2024. It appears that the petitioner filed a restoration application. But, there also the petitioner is not appearing. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 19.03.2025 Avneet/