27.07.2026 Sl. No.: 19 Court No.7 BM WPA 18049 of 2026 SAHIDA LASKAR VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Mr. Pijush Kanti Khanra Mr. Uttam Banerjee Mr. Somnath Khanra ... for the petitioner Mr. Abhishek Banerjee Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury Ms. Trisa Chanda ... for the Punjab National Bank 1. This writ petition assails an auction process initiated by the Punjab National Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner is neither the borrower nor the guarantor in respect of the credit facility availed of by one M/s. S. B. Garments. 3. It is the petitioner’s case in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the petitioner is the owner of the property which is sought to be sold in auction and the petitioner’s son has mortgaged the property. 4. It is submitted that no notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was ever served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that since no notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 had been served upon the petitioner therefore, the petitioner had 2 no opportunity to make any representation thereagainst and accordingly no step under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act could have been taken against the petitioner. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the Bank hands up to the Court copy of a Letter of Guarantee and submits that the petitioner had executed a guarantee in favour of the Bank thereby standing surety to the credit facilities availed of by the petitioner’s son. It is further submitted that notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was served upon the petitioner. 6. Heard Learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record. 7. A copy of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act forms Annexure ‘P-1’ to the writ petition (at page 18 thereof). Although the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not served with a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, it is the petitioner’s own case in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the notices were found at the petitioner’s business place. The petitioner has also averred that the petitioner has conducted her business through her sons only. It is therefore prima facie not acceptable that no notice was served upon the writ petitioner. 8. In any event, the auction notice indicates that the date of auction is July 28, 2026. The petitioner has 3 filed this writ petition on July 22, 2026. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to why has the petitioner approached the Court so late at the time when auction is just at the door. 9. Furthermore, any action taken by a secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is assailable before the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the proposed auction sale is also one such step. 10. The petitioner was at least aware of the said notice on July 22, 2027 when the writ petition was filed. In such view of the matter, instead of approaching this court the petitioner ought to have approached relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. 11. Even if the petitioner’s best case is assumed to be true that the petitioner is neither borrower nor the guarantor then also given the wide language of Section 17, the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act, there was ample scope for the petitioner to challenge such SARFAESI action before the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. 12. Although an alternative remedy is not absolute bar to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India yet in the present fact situation, where there is neither any public law element involved 4 nor has any extra ordinary case been made out, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the writ petitioner. 13. In such view of the matter, WPA 18049 of 2026 is not entertained. 14. The petitioner is left free to approach relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal to seek redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. No costs. ( Om Narayan Rai, J. )