Allahabad High Court
WRIC/17978/2026 of RAHUL KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 6 May 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17978 of 2026 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Lal Bahadur Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17978 of 2026
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri Lal Bahadur Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have prayed for following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2/ District Magistrate, Bijnor in Case No. 850 of 2025 (Chief Manager ICICI Bank Versus Rahul Kumar) Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002."
3. Per contra it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the respondent financial institution being a private Bank, this Court may not like to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in the light of the judgement in the case of S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relief claimed in this petition and also the judgement in the case of S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (supra) in which the Supreme Court has held that the High Courts should refrain themselves from interfering in matters of debt liabilities and the consequential action taken by such financial institutions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the 'SARFAESI Act, 2002') by invoking extraordinary jurisdictional Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Bahadur, Ram Sajiwan Prajapati Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kundan Rai, Manish Trivedi Rahul Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. In view of the above, we decline to grant indulgence in the matter. However, we still provide that in the event petitioners apply before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 within a period of four weeks from today along with stay application and if he does so, the said application shall be considered after putting the bank to notice and dispose of the same within a further period of four weeks thereafter and thereafter securitization application itself shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period of three months.
6. Subject to aforesaid liberty, petition stands consigned to records. May 7, 2026 IrfanUddin WRIC No. 17978 of 2026 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad