Shalini Bhagat v. Union of India and 3 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010145012020 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4472/2020o SHALINIoBHAGATo W/O-oSHRIoSANDEEPoKUMARoBHAGAT,oR/O-oVERDAMANoAPARTMENT,o JANKIoPATH,oGANESHGURI,oGHY-06,oINoTHEoDIST.oOFoKAMRUPo(M),oASSAM VERSUSo UNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo3oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoSECY.,oMINISTRYoOFoFINANCE,oGOVT.oOFoINDIA,oNEWoDELHI-110001 2:RESERVEoBANKoOFoINDIA oTHROUGHoGOVERNOR o6 oSANSADoMARG oNEWoDELHI-o110001 3:CANARAoBANK oAoBODYoCORPORATEoANDoDULYoCONSTITUTEDoUNDERoTHEoBANKINGo COMPANIESo(ACQUISITIONoANDoTRANSFERoOFoUNDERTAKING)oACT o1970 oHAVINGoITSoH.O.oATo112 oJ.C.ROAD oBANGALORE-o560002oDOINGoTHEoBUSINESSoOFoBANKINGoAToDIVERSEo PLACESoALLoOVERoINDIAoANDoNoPARTICULARoDISPURoBRANCHoATo DISPUR oGHY-06 oASSAMoANDoISoREP.oBYoITSoCHIEFoMANAGER 4:THEoAUTHORISEDoOFFICER oCANARAoBANK oRoANDoLoSECTION oCIRCLEoOFFICE oNEARoBORAoSERVICE Page No.# 2/3 GHY-01 KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

– B E F O R E – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

03-08-2021 ( Sudhanshu Dhulia

, CJ)

The matter is taken up through video conferencing. Heard Mr. M. Beria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor, i.e. Canara Bank under theSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest(SARFAESI) Act, 2002. At the time when this writ petition was filed, the account of the petitioner had been declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by the secured creditor which was put up for public auction. This public auction was challenged by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. However, learned counsel for the secured creditor Mr. S. Page No.# 3/3 Borthakur has informed the Court that pursuant to the notice (which is presently under challenge before this Court), no bidder turned up and, therefore, another notice was given by the Bank, pursuant to which he property was sold and third party interests were created, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3084/2021, which was dismissed as infructuous by this Court on 21.06.2021. Thereafter, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court where the SLP was also dismissed. Under these circumstances, since the present matter pertains to the earlier auction notice, which has lost its relevance in any case, the writ petition has become infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF

JUSTICE Comparing Assistant