Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Sarita Sharma @ Sarita Devi vs Authorized Officer on 26 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:25377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2025
Smt. Sarita Sharma @ Sarita Devi, aged about 45 years,
Wife of Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Resident of House no.-
6/2-4, Adityapur Housing Colony, Road no.2, P.O.-
Adityapur, P.S.- Adityapur & District - Saraikela
Kharsawan - 813013. ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India,
Jamshedpur Main Branch, Kamani Centre, Bistupur,
Jamshedpur, P.O., P.S. - Bistupur & District - East
Singhbhum - 831001.
2. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner -
Seraikela Kharsawan, officiating at Collectorate
Building, 1st Floor Gourangdih, P.O., P.S & District -
Seraikela Kharsawan - 833219.
...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. P.A.S Pati, Advocate
Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : A.C to A.G
---------
th
03/Dated: 26 August, 2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs :-
(a) for quashing/ setting aside the order passed
in SARFAESI Case No.28/ 2024-25 contained in
memo no.642 dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure 26) issued
under the pen & signature of respondent no.2
whereby and whereunder while accepting the
application made under section 14 of SARFEASI Act,
2002 by respondent no.1, an order to handover and
get physical possession of the mortgaged lease house
to respondent no. 1 on 25.04.2025 in presence of
C.O. Gamharia, registered in the name of the
petitioner by the Jharkhand State Housing Board
(JSHB) vide lease deed no.2602/2591 dated
2025:JHHC:25377
31.03.2011 (Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner
still in force, and where the petitioner along with her
husband and two children still resides having no
other place to go.
(b) for quashing/ setting aside the E-Auction
Sale of mortgaged property informed to petitioner by
e-auction sale Notice dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure -
14) sold by the respondent no.1 on 25.01.2024 to
auction purchaser for sale being vitiated by collusion
between respondent no. 1 and the auction purchaser
wherein the conduct & irregularities committed by
the respondent bank are in complete violation of the
provisions of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules
2002, and goes to the root of such auction &
procedures adopted to favour the auction purchaser.
(c) for setting aside the entire proceedings of
O.A. no.534/2019 filed u/s 19 of the Recovery of
Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act,
1993, as erroneous for not adding Jharkhand State
Housing Board (JSHB) a necessary party to the case
even when the said 'Board' is the lessor to the
mortgaged leased property, in view of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court
in the case of Sardul Auto Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
of Jharkhand & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 487/2012 reported
in 2018 SCC Online Jhar 914.
(d) for commanding upon the respondents
showing cause as to under what circumstances the
respondent no. 1 did not re-auction the mortgaged
property after not receiving deposit of 25% of the
amount of sale price from the auction purchaser
shall immediately on 25.01.2024 and 75% on or
before 15th day of confirmation of sale and in any
case not exceeding three months in view of
provisions of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002.
(e) for commanding upon the respondents
2025:JHHC:25377
showing cause as to why was sale value of auction
held on 25.01.2024 received by the respondent bank
from the auction purchaser, credited to the loan
account of the petitioner on 12.02.2025, and why
was such E-auction sale made for value less than the
reserved price of Rs. 39,25,000/- and if at all the e-
auction sale was completed on 25.01.2024 then why
has the petitioner been charged upon interest and
penalty upto 12.02.2025 and moreover why was no
amount in excess of the outstanding amount paid by
the auction purchaser, if any, not credited to the
account of the petitioner till date, and upon hearing
the respondents be pleased to declare the actions of
the Respondents as unreasonable and arbitrary and
direct them to cancel the auction sale for being
erroneous and against the provisions of Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
2. A notification has been brought to the notice of this
Court by the counsel for the respondent showing that the
Debt Recovery Tribunal is now functional.
3. In view of the notification, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ
petition with a liberty to work out his remedy in the pending
proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
4. With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition is,
hereby disposed of.
5. Since it is a residential house, the Debt Recovery
Tribunal is expected to proceed in right earnest.
6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi-Chandan/-
