Sukh Ram Sharma vs Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal office at Shimla, H.P., Branch Manager, SBI, The Mall Solan, H.P. and Distt. Magistrate, Solan, Distt. Solan, H.P.

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the impugned order vide which respondents has proceeded further to take the possession of the house of the petitioner dated 8.3.2011 served on 29.3.2011 without prior intimation and giving any opportunity of being heard before the respondent No. 3 and sought impugned order and the said order is liable to be stayed during the pendency and till the final disposal of the writ petition.

ii). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents not to proceed further and to take the possession of the house during the pendency and with a direction to summon the entire record in respect of loan case and the amount deposited by the petitioner till date in the loan account and despite receiving the huge amount why the jurisdiction under the Securitization and reconstruction Act has been invoked by the respondent Bank and passed interim stay order/direction against the respondents.

On 1.4.2011, this Court in CMP No. 2458 of 2011, passed the following orders:

Petitioner submits that in case there are any dues, he is prepared to settle it. But it is submitted that no notice of any dues was ever given to the petitioner and without giving such notice only coercive steps have been taken. Notice dasti to the second respondent. No notice need be issued at this stage to the first respondent.

The learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.

In case the petitioner has not been dispossessed as on today, further proceedings in that regard will be deferred till such time.

Post on 11th April, 2011.

In reply at paragraphs 6 to 8, it is stated that the petitioner has been duly served notice and that he himself approached the Bank and made a written request. Be that as it may. The case was posted on 2.3.2012, but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the case was again listed for today. There is no rejoinder. The writ petition is dismissed, however with liberty reserved to the petitioner that in case the petitioner has any dispute with regard to the factual position, it will be open to him to point out the same before the second respondent, in which case the second respondent will look into the matter, after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.