Patna High Court
Md. Ajim @ Md. Ajim Uddin vs The State Of Bihar on 18 July, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.712 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19306 of 2024
======================================================
Md. Ajim @ Md. Ajim Uddin, Son of Md. Ismail, Resident of Purani Bazar,
Khaira Road, Jamui, Distict Jamui.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Joint Secretary, Directorate of Institutional
Finance (Finance Department), Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jamui.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Jamui.
4. The Circle Officer, Jamui.
5. The Station House Officer, Jamui Police Station, Jamui.
6. The Chief Manager, Circle Shastra Centre, Punjab National Bank, Circle
Office Ramchandrapur, Biharsharif.
7. The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Jamui Branch, District -
Jamui.
8. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jamui Branch, Jamui.
... ... Respondents 1st Set
9. Gagan Kumar Son of Uma Shankar Prasad Gupta, Resident of Sikandra
Bazar, PS Sikandra, District Jamui.
... ... Respondent 2nd Set/Writ Petitioner
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Asif Kalim, AC to AAG-12
For the PNB : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Pvt. Resp : Mr. S.P. Parasar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 18-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondents 1st set and respondents 2nd set.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
2/15
2. The appellant in this case is aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed by the
learned Writ Court in CWJC No. 19306 of 2024. By the impugned
judgment, learned Writ Court refused to allow the intervention
application being I.A. No. 01 of 2025 preferred by the applicant-
appellant seeking to implead himself as party Respondent No. 9 in
the writ petition and allowed the writ petition.
3. It appears on perusal of the records that Respondent
No. 9 of the present appeal preferred the writ petition being CWJC
No. 19306 of 2024 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) For the issuance of appropriate writ or
writs in the nature of mandamus directing and
commanding the Respondents, especially
Respondent Nos.-2 and 4 to hand over the
physical and vacant possession of the
auctioned and sold property situated at (a)
Khata No. 53, Plot No. 461, Thana No. 41,
Touzi No. 346, Ward No. 14 area 1.125
decimal, Mouza- Jamui, Pargana Gidhour, P.S.
+ Sub-Division + District Jamui Title Deed
No. 10904 dated 14.12.2004 owner Md.
Azimuddin vide Sale Certificate dated
31.07.2024
, (b) Khata No. 53 Plot No. 468,
Thana No. 41, Touzi No. 346, Ward No. 14,
Hall Ward No. 23, area 288 Sqft. Mouza-
Jamui Bazar- Purani Bazar, Khaira More se
Mir Mas Jamui, Pargana Gidhour, P.S. + Sub-
Division + District Jamui, Title Deed No. 312
dated 19.01.2011 owner Md. Azimuddin, son
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
3/15
of Late Sheikh Ismael, (c) Khata No. 53 Plot
No. 468, Thana No. 41, Touzi No. 346, Ward
No. 14, Hall Ward No. 23, area 288 Sqft.
Mouza- Jamui Bazar- Purani Bazar, Khaira
More se Mir Mas Jamui, Pargana Gidhour,
P.S. + Sub-Division + District Jamui, Title
Deed No. 1540 dated 03.03.2012 owner Md.
Azimuddin, son of Late Sheikh Ismael, (d)
Khata No. 8 Plot No. 244, Thana No. 41,
Touzi No. 346, Ward No. 14, area 2.70
decimal Mouza- Jamui Pargana Gidhour, P.S.
+ Sub-Division + District Jamui, Title Deed
No. 1409 dated 14.03.2005 owner Md.
Azimuddin, son of Late Sheikh Ismael, all the
said properties have been auctioned sold to
the petitioner by the Authorized Officer,
Circle Shastra Centre, Ramchandrapur,
Punjab National Bank vide Sale Certificate
dated 31.07.2024.
(ii) For the issuance of appropriate writ or
writs in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondent No.-4 to comply the order passed
by the Respondent No. 2 vide SARFAESI
Case No. 01/2024 dated 20.08.2024 whereby
and where under the said respondent no.-2
directed the respondent no.-4 to take
necessary action and to handover the physical
possession of the properties in question to the
petitioner forthwith.
(iii) For issuance of direction upon the
respondent authorities to pay compensation
for withholding the huge amount of
Rs.1,42,25,000.00 (One Crore Forty-Two
Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand only) since
24.07.2024 without any fault on the part of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
4/15
petitioner as during the said period, the
petitioner has suffered mental distress and
agony as well as huge financial loss having
detrimental effect upon other business of the
petitioner as the Respondent without rhyme
and reason has not handover the physical
possession of aforesaid properties to the
petitioner.
(iv) For any other relief/reliefs for which the
petitioner is entitled in the eye of law.”
Brief Facts of the Case
4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that pursuant to a
sale notice issued by the Authorised Officer of the Punjab National
Bank, Jamui Branch, Jamui, (hereinafter called ‘Bank’), he
participated in the auction sale of the secured assets conducted
under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002‘). The writ
petitioner emerged as the highest bidder of all the three properties
which were subject matter of sale. In this regard, he placed before
this Court a copy of the intimation letter dated 16.07.2024 which is
enclosed as Annexure ‘P/1’ to the writ application.
5. It is pointed out that pursuant to Annexure ‘P/1’ i.e.
sale intimation letter, the petitioner paid the entire amount to the
Bank through RTGS. The Bank duly accepted the entire payment.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
5/15
The sale was confirmed. The confirmation of sale letter as
contained in Annexure ‘P/3’ to the writ application has been placed
before this Court.
6. The petitioner has further stated that as the Authorised
Officer of the Bank apprehended the possible problem of law and
order while taking physical possession of the property, he filed an
application before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jamui
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which was
numbered as SARFAESI Act Case No. 01/2024. The District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jamui heard the parties and passed an
order on 20.08.2004 (Annexure ‘P/5’) whereby he directed the
Circle Officer, Jamui to ensure that the physical possession of the
property is handed over to the Authorised Officer of the Bank.
7. The petitioner moved this Court, as according to him,
despite the direction of the District Magistrate, Jamui, the Circle
Officer did not act upon the same. It is stated that even the
Authorised Officer of the Bank wrote a letter dated 13.09.2024
(Annexure ‘P/6’) to the Circle Officer, Jamui requesting him to
take steps towards compliance of the order dated 20.08.2024
passed in SARFAESI Act Case No. 01/2024 but that was of no
avail. Even after passing of a substantial period, when the
petitioner found that the Circle Officer is not taking care of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
6/15
orders and sitting tight over the matter, he approached this Court
by filing the writ application. The petitioner contended that he is a
bonafide purchaser of the property in question in the e-auction
conducted by the Authorised Officer of the Bank and has shelled
out the hard-earned money of Rs.1,42,25,000.00/- under bonafide
belief that he would soon get physical possession of the property.
8. The petitioner contended before this Court that the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 was enacted to provide a machinery for
empowering banks and financial institutions so that they may have
the power to take possession of secured assets and to sell them.
9. From the records, it appears that the learned Writ
Court passed orders from time to time directing Respondent No. 4
to comply with the orders of the District Magistrate and file a
report but when the report was not filed, the District Magistrate as
well as the Circle Officer were asked to be present in the Court.
10. The borrower, who is the appellant before this Court,
filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 01 of 2025. The
Interlocutory Application was filed seeking to implead the
borrower as party Respondent No. 9 in the writ petition. The
borrower contended before the Writ Court that the physical
possession of subject property is still with him, therefore, he was a
necessary party to be impleaded and heard. The learned Writ Court
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
7/15
was informed that the borrower had approached the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Patna (in short ‘DRT’) questioning the auction
of the property and also the sale certificate issued in favour of the
writ petitioner. A contention was made that the writ petition would
not be maintainable at the instance of the auction purchaser.
11. The learned Writ Court found that the subject
property which was mortgaged by the borrower with the
respondent Bank has already been auctioned and sale certificate
has been issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner
was only seeking implementation of the order passed by the
District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002,
therefore, the petitioner would not be a proper or necessary party
to the present writ. The learned Writ Court was of the view that the
only option available to the intervenor-petitioner was either to
challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by way of a separate writ petition
or approach DRT seeking stay of the implementation of the sale
certificate issued in favour of the writ petitioner. In ultimate
analysis, the learned Writ Court found that even if the application
of the intervenor was allowed, no useful purpose would be
achieved as no relief can be granted in favour of the intervenor-
petitioner.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
8/15
12. The plea on behalf of the intervenor-petitioner that
the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot be invoked as an executing court for implementing
the order of the District Magistrate has been rejected by the
learned Writ Court.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
13. In appeal before us, learned counsel for the appellant
has contended that in this case, though a sale certificate was issued
in favour of the auction purchaser but the sale was yet not
completed. It is submitted that if the sale was yet not completed,
the auction purchaser had no locus standi to move this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking implementation of
the order dated 20th August, 2024 passed by the District Magistrate
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. By placing reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
ITC Limited versus Blue Coast Hotels Limited and Others
reported in (2018) 15 SCC 99 (paragraph ’48’), learned counsel
submits that in the said case, one of the questions which arose for
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as to
whether creditor having taken a symbolic possession and auction
sold the property remains a secured creditor. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the transfer of secured assets by the creditor cannot
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
9/15
be said to be a complete transfer as contemplated under Section 8
of the Transfer of Property Act. The creditor had still right to
actual possession of the secured assets, therefore, it must be held
that the creditor remained a secured creditor even after the limited
transfer to the auction purchaser under the agreement.
14. Learned counsel submits that the learned Writ Court
has erred in entertaining the writ application at the instance of the
auction purchaser. In fact, the submission of learned counsel is that
neither the secured creditor nor the auction purchaser could have
invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for implementation of
the order dated 20th August, 2024 passed by the District
Magistrate.
15. It is submitted that the borrower has approached the
DRT against the order dated 20th August, 2024 and the auction
purchaser, if so advised, would have only remedy to file an
application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before
the DRT for implementation of the order of the District Magistrate.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank as
well as learned counsel for the auction purchaser have jointly
contended that the submissions made on behalf of the intervenor-
applicant/appellant are thoroughly misconceived. The writ
petitioner has invested a sum of Rs.1,42,25,000.00/- and has got a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
10/15
confirmed sale certificate of the auction properties. Despite the
order of the District Magistrate in terms of the statutory scheme of
the SARFAESI Act, 2002 if the Circle Officer was sitting idle and
was not implementing the order, the auction purchaser cannot be
expected to remain a fence sitter and see how the game is being
played between the borrower and the Authorised Officer of the
Bank.
17. Learned counsel further submits that even going by
paragraph ’48’ of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of ITC Limited (supra), it would be crystal clear that the
secured creditor had made at least limited transfer to the auction
purchaser. This would be evident from the confirmation of sale. If
this was the position and the writ petitioner being beneficiary of the
order of the District Magistrate was suffering, he rightly invoked
the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking direction to
the Bank as well as the District Magistrate and the Circle Officer to
act in accordance with the statutory scheme and implement the
order.
18. It is submitted that the borrower did not respond to
the notice under Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002. He remained sitting idle when the symbolic possession
of the property was taken and sale notice dated 03.06.2024 was
issued. Learned counsel submits that the borrower had a cause of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
11/15
action to challenge the symbolic possession and the sale notice
which were the measures taken by the Bank under sub-Section (4)
of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In fact, the Bank being
the secured creditor took symbolic possession of the property and
had conducted the auction sale without there being any legal
impediment. It is only when the District Magistrate passed order
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the borrower moved
before the DRT challenging the order dated 20.08.2024 but in the
said proceeding, he did not implead the auction purchaser until
04.07.2025. This being the position, there being no stay on the
implementation of the order of the District Magistrate, the learned
Writ Court has rightly issued directions to the Statutory Authority
under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and such directions are within the
framework of the Statute.
19. At this stage, this Court called upon learned counsel
for the appellant to confirm as to whether the borrower had ever
challenged the action taken by the Authorised Officer of the Bank
under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the answer is that
the borrower has not challenged the action of the Bank either at the
stage of taking symbolic possession of the property or at the time of
sale of the property. The contention is that the auction purchaser has
challenged the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002
which takes within its compass the action under Section 13(4),
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
12/15
therefore, if the borrower succeeds in the application brought before
DRT against Section 14 order, all the previous steps taken by the
Bank would automatically go.
Consideration
20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
going through the records, we find that on the point of service of
Section 13(2) notice, while learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that in the I.A. filed by the intervenor-appellant, he had
stated that no notice was served upon the appellant, learned counsel
for the Bank submits that the said notice was duly served and it
may be found from the averments made in paragraph ‘5.3’ of the
SARFAESI Application of the appellant, the fact is that the
appellant has not questioned service of notice under sub-Section (2)
of Section 13. In fact, there is an admission that the Bank issued
demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on
08.02.2024 and in the demand notice, the Bank allowed the
applicant to reply within 60 days, thereafter, it is stated in paragraph
‘5.4’ that the applicant personally visited the Branch and requested
the Bank to give the details of his account so that he could
scrutinise the same and make payments.
21. We have perused the SARFAESI application, copy of
which has been provided by learned counsel for the appellant and
find that the submission of learned counsel for the Bank is correct.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
13/15
The Bank being a secured creditor had a security interest over the
properties in question. The Bank invoked its power under the
scheme of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing a notice under
Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is evident that Section
13(2) notice which is also known as a demand notice was not
responded to, by the borrower.
22. This Court further finds that when the Authorised
Officer of the Bank took action under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 by taking symbolic possession of the
property and then by issuing a sale notice dated 03.06.2024, the
borrower did not challenge the same. The cause of action was there
to the borrower but no application under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 was filed challenging the measures taken by
the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
23. In the aforementioned background, the application
was filed by the secured creditor before the District Magistrate
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in which the
borrower was also heard and thereafter, the order dated 20.08.2024
was passed.
24. Since the Circle Officer was not acting on the
direction of the District Magistrate in terms of the order under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the auction purchaser
moved this Court seeking the directions recorded herinabove.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
14/15
25. In our opinion, in this world of commercial
exigencies, the sanctity of the action taken under the provisions of
the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is required to be maintained as far as it
confirms the statutory proceeding. The auction purchaser being
beneficiary of the order under Section 14 cannot be expected to
remain sitting idle and just curse his fate as to why he invested so
much money in purchase of the property. In this case, the auction
purchaser moved this Court only when he found that nothing was
happening and despite parting with a sum of Rs.1,42,25,000.00/-
(Rupees One Crore Forty Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand/-), he
was not getting the possession of the property.
26. In our considered opinion, in such circumstances, if
the auction purchaser, who has got at least limited transfer in terms
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC
Limited (supra), invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he cannot be ousted on the
ground of locus standi. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is a
plenary jurisdiction and in appropriate cases where it is found that
the authorities under the statute are not implementing the scheme of
the statute, this Court may at the instance of the auction purchaser
issue appropriate writ. Thus, the plea of locus standi of the auction
purchaser is outrightly rejected.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.712 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
15/15
27. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that neither the secured creditor nor the auction purchaser
could have invoked this Court, in our considered opinion, has no
basis to stand and we reject it outrightly.
28. This Court has been informed that against the order
dated 20.08.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, the borrower
has moved before the DRT. If it is so, we refrain from making any
comment with respect to the said proceeding. It is open for the
appellant to pursue his remedy, if any, available to him.
29. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of
the learned Writ Court.
30. This Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 23.07.2025 Transmission Date
[ad_1]
Source link