[2025:RJ-JP:35393] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13147/2025 Aggarwal Motors Carrier Private Limited, Through Its Directors, Add Dukan No. 292, Najdik, Balmiki Chowk, Purana Cinema Road, Sangaria, Hanumangarh-335063, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Hdfc Bank Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Hdfc Bank House, S.b. Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai- 400013 And Regional Office At 4Th Floor, Time Square Building, 10 Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302023, Through Its Authorized Signatory Sh. Karunesh Srivastava. 2. Mr. Gaganraj Bansal S/o Sh. Somraj Bansal, Add Ward No. 3, Purana Cinema Road, Sangaria, Hanumangarh- 3235063, Rajasthan 3. Mr. Somraj Bansal S/o Sh. Hemraj, Add- Ward No. 3, Purana Cinema Road, Sangaria, Hanumangarh-3235063, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashish Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vineet Sharma with Ms.Neha Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/09/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, multiple prayers have been made assailing the validity of the ex-parte order dated 22.04.2025 and the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, “the DRT”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the respondents for recovery is pending before the DRT [2025:RJ-JP:35393] (2 of 5) [CW-13147/2025] wherein an application was submitted by the respondents for appointment of Receiver and without supplying a copy of the same and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the said application submitted by the respondents has been allowed vide impugned ex-parte order dated 22.04.2025 and a Receiver has been appointed to attach the vehicles of the petitioner. 3. Counsel submits that an interim application has been submitted by the petitioner for recalling of the aforesaid ex-parte order, but the said application is still lying pending for its adjudication and in the meantime, the DRT has passed a successive order on 20.08.2025 by which the petitioner has been directed to produce the vehicles for inspection of the Bank Officer within a period of two weeks. 4. Counsel submits that unless and until the interim application submitted by the petitioner for recalling of the ex-parte order dated 22.04.2025 is decided, the successive order should not have been passed by the DRT. 5. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition seeking appropriate protection and directions. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that huge loan amount in crores of rupees was taken by the petitioner and when the same was not repaid, his accounts were declared as NPA and for recovery of the aforesaid amount, the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner before the DRT. Counsel submits that since the petitioner was changing the [2025:RJ-JP:35393] (3 of 5) [CW-13147/2025] number plates of the vehicle and was bent upon to disburse the vehicle, hence, in order to protect the rights of the respondents for recovery, an application was submitted for appointment of Receiver for attachment of those vehicles against which the loan has been taken by the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the DRT has not committed any error in passing the impugned ex-parte order dated 22.04.2025 and the successive order dated 20.08.2025 asking the petitioner to produce all the vehicles before the Bank Officers for its inspection. 7. Counsel submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, “the DRAT”), hence, on this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 8. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. Perusal of the record indicates that the order dated 22.04.2025 has been passed ex-parte without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This fact is not disputed by counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, the copy of the application seeking appointment of Receiver was not supplied to the petitioner, but the same was sent to him by post. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the submissions on the fact that before providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order dated 22.04.2025 was passed. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank & Ors. reported in 2024 [2025:RJ-JP:35393] (4 of 5) [CW-13147/2025] (6) Scc 579 has dealt with certain exceptions which have been carved out where the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, the following principles have been carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 29, which reads as under: “29. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) Where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has restored to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.” 7. The principle laid down in clause (iv) by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent (Supra) is quite applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as there is utter violation of the principles of natural justice as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the ex-parte order dated 22.04.2025 for appointment of the Receiver and for attachment of vehicles of the petitioner and straightaway the order impugned was passed. 8. This fact is not in dispute that for recalling of the aforesaid order, an interim application has been submitted by the petitioner, [2025:RJ-JP:35393] (5 of 5) [CW-13147/2025] the said application has not been decided as yet and the same is lying pending for its adjudication on its merits. In the considered opinion of this Court, until the aforesaid interim application submitted by the petitioner is not decided, the DRT should not proceed further to execute its order dated 20.08.2025. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with directions to the DRT to decide the interim application submitted by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 22.04.2025 expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. For the intervening period, the order dated 20.08.2025 shall not be given effect. 11. The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /211