1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7782 of 2026 Date of Decision : 30.06.2026 Hira Singh …… Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Mandi and others …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP No.15184 of 2026 The present application has been filed for placing on record the typed copy of Annexure P-3. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P-3 is taken on record. Office to append the same at the relevant place. The application stands disposed of. CWP No.7782 of 2026 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by Office of the District Magistrate Mandi, District Mandi, under Section 14 of the Securitization 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and also the auction proceedings, sale notice dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-7), e- auction conducted on 06.03.2026 (Annexure P-9) and sale confirmation dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-10). Direction is also sought to permit the petitioner to regularize/redeem the loan account by granting reasonable time and permitting repayment of the outstanding amount in easy installments. 3. The sole argument as such on behalf of the petitioner is that he was ready and willing to pay the outstanding amount and, therefore, the respondents-bank has faulted while putting the mortgaged property to auction and the same has also been under valued as such. 4. We find that the initial notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 30.10.2024 (Annexure P-2), whereby a sum of Rs.5,07,230.21/- was stated to be outstanding, as on 30.09.2024. Apparently, on account of notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act having been issued, order under Section 14 of the Act was passed on dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner had represented on 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-4). In the said representation, he has submitted that he is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount and the said representation had been filed through an Advocate and deference of the execution of the possession order dated 09.04.2025 had been sought and six months’ time had been prayed to clear the outstanding amount. 3 5. Apparently, the petitioner was also given notice on 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-7) that the mortgaged property would be put to sale and resultantly the advertisement was also issued, whereby the property in question along with others was put up by way of e-auction for sale to recover the outstanding amount by fixing the reserve prices at Rs.9,50,000/-. The private respondent No.5 gave the bid amount of Rs.9,60,000/-, which was accepted on 06.03.2026 and thereafter he has been directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.7,20,000/- by the bank (Annexure P-10). 6. In such circumstances, apparently the bank has proceeded under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act by taking symbolic possession and thereafter also getting an order from the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act. The said proceedings could have been challenged in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and the petitioner has an alternate remedy as such before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The law is crystal clear on the said aspect that the High Court as such would not take over the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 7. It is also to be noticed that the matter has been pending since 30.10.2024 and even on 05.05.2025 as such, a representation had also been filed but the outstanding amount was not cleared and even now the position remains the same, though some amount has been paid as argued by the counsel for the petitioner. 8. Resultantly, keeping in view the law laid down in M/s South Indian Bank Limited and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and 4 another, 2023 INSC 379, we do not find any plausible reason as such to entertain the present petition. The argument raised that the property is valued much more is an argument, which can be raised before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not shown any bona fide as such to deposit the entire outstanding amount before the property was put to auction 9. In such circumstances, we do not feel that it is a fit case to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and the petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy, if permissible in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) June 30, 2026 (KS) Judge