C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 18.09.26 D/L Sl-07 Ct. 07 (Samar) WPA 25935 of 2026 Sk. Halim Vs. Bank of Baroda (erstwhile Dena Bank) & Ors. Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty, Mr. Bidan Modak, Ms. Doyel Dey, ….for the petitioner. Mr. Surganeel Das, ld. AGP, Mrs. Sarda Sha, ….for the State. 1. The petitioner assails inter alia the action taken by the Bank under the relevant provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and a direction on the Bank to reconsider the petitioner’s proposal for one time settlement. 2. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for restraining the District Magistrate, Howrah, the Superintendent of Police and the local Police authorities from taking possession of the petitioner’s residential property on the basis of the measures taken by the Bank under the 2002 Act. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a borrower of the respondent Bank and has availed of certain credit facilities which are allegedly in default. The Documents annexed to the writ petition reveal that the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Kolkata by filing an application under Section 17 of the 2002 Act which 2 has been registered as SA/189/2026. 4. It is also evident that the petitioner had earlier too approached this Court by filing WPA 18107 of 2025 assailing an auction notice published by the Bank on July 07, 2025. However, the writ petition was disposed of leaving the petition free to challenge the steps taken by the Bank to sell the secured assets before the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal. 5. The petitioner contends that the petitioner had offered to settle the loan by way of one time settlement, however, the Bank has arbitrarily issued a notice which has been impugned in the writ petition, before the expiry of the time within which the petitioner was to settle the loan. 6. The notice dated September 08, 2026 which forms annexure P-9, to the writ petition reveals that the petitioner’s offer/represent for one time settlement of the loan account has been rejected by the respondent Bank. The Bank is well within its rights not to settle the loan at a particular amount and no mandatory can be passed by this Court directing the Bank to enter into a settlement. If the Bank has rejected the proposal for one time settlement, the Court cannot force it to reconsider the same by issuing a writ of mandamus. The SARFAESI action initiated by the Bank is already made subject matter of challenge before the Debts Recovery 3 Tribunal. In such view of the matter, there is nothing that can pursue this Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner herein. 7. WPA 25935 of 2026 is not entertained. The petitioner shall be free to assert all points before the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal in the pending SARFAESI Application which shall be considered and decided by the Tribunal, independently in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, WPA +25935 of 2026 stands disposed of. No Costs. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)