Laxmipriya Mallick vs Authorized Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 6727 Ori

Orissa High Court

Laxmipriya Mallick vs Authorized Officer on 5 April, 2025

Author: K.R. Mohapatra

Bench: K.R. Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) NO.8737 OF 2025

                 Laxmipriya Mallick                             ....        Petitioner.
                                              Mr. Sayed Sibgatullah, Advocate
                                            -versus-
                 1. Authorized Officer, State Bank of      .... Opp. Parties,
                 India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch,
                 Bhubaneswar
                 2. Chief Manager, State Bank of India,
                 Khurda Branch
                 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
                 Bhubaneswar

            CORAM:
                            JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                            MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

                                          ORDER

Order No.                                05.04.2025
     01.    1.              This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:-

"The petitioner therefore prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue Rule NISI to file show cause as to why the writ of mandamus/certiorari shall not be issued against the opposite parties, if they fail to file show cause or file insufficient cause make the rule absolute by declaring the order dtd.11.01.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.244/2023 under Annexure-1 as in fructuous and the process of recovery by evicting the petitioner from the secured mortgaged asset in view of order dtd.11.01.2024 is illegal and not enforceable for the interest of justice."

3. Mr. Syed Sibgatullah, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party-Bank on the basis

of Annexure-1, which has already became infructuous is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the secured asset which is not permissible. In support of his case, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Bajaj Finance Limited Vrs. M/s. Ali Agency and Others in W.P.(C) No.11425 of 2021.

4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of this writ petition to avail remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack.

5. In view of such submission, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Narayan