Chandralata Gosai vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Tahsildar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Chandralata Gosai vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Tahsildar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner can be considered aggrieved by the DRT-2 order dated 15th September 2025 (challenged in prayer clause (a)), which records no finding but only the Respondent-Bank's trespass submission and disposal of S.A. No. 413/2025 as infructuous. +1 more

Court's answer

No finding is recorded in the DRT-2 order dated 15th September 2025; the order merely records the Respondent-Bank's submission that the Applicant had trespassed on the secured asset/property, and the Petitioner's objection is also recorded in the said order itself.

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner has an available statutory remedy to challenge the DRT-2 order by approaching the DRAT.

Key takeaways

This is not a fit case for the Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash, JJ.; 5th December 2025) dismissed Writ Petition No. 13348 of 2025 (Chanderlata Gosai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), in which the Petitioner sought (a) quashing of an order dated 15th September 2025 passed by the DRT-2 and (b) quashing of a sale notice dated 18th September 2025. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stated that, pursuant to the sale notice, no bids were received and the auction did not take place, making prayer clause (b) infructuous; the statement was noted. On prayer clause (a), the Court observed that the DRT-2 order recorded no finding - it merely recorded the Respondent-Bank's submission that the Applicant had trespassed on the secured asset/property, with the Petitioner's objection also recorded therein, and that S.A. No. 413/2025 had been disposed of as infructuous since the scheduled auction of 5th September 2025 did not take place. Holding that the Petitioner had a statutory remedy to approach the DRAT, the Court found her not properly aggrieved and declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; Interim Application (ST) No. 36351 of 2025 did not survive and was disposed of.

WP 13348/2025 Chanderlata vs. State of Mah.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 36351 OF 2025

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13348 OF 2025

Chanderlata Gosai … Applicant In the matter between: Chanderlata Gosai ….Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Kamlesh Vaswani (through V.C.) a/w Adv. A. R. Shaikh for the Petitioner. Adv. M. S. Bane, AGP for the State.

Ms. Priyanka Pandey for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. DATE : 5^th DECEMBER 2025

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking

two main reliefs, Prayer clause (a) which seeks quashing and setting aside of

an order dated 15^th September 2025 passed by the DRT-2 and Prayer clause

(b) which seeks quashing and setting aside of a sale notice dated 18^th September 2025.

Page 1 of 3

------------------------------------Order dated 5^th December 2025

WP 13348/2025 Chanderlata vs. State of Mah.

We have heard Mr. Kamlesh Vaswani, the learned Counsel who

appears on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. Priyanka Pandey, the learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

The learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the relief sought in prayer clause (b) has become infructuous inasmuch as, pursuant to the issuance of the sale notice dated 18^th September 2025, no bids were received and therefore the auction did not take place. The statement is noted.

Insofar as the prayer clause (a) is concerned, we observe that there is no finding that is recorded in the order dated 15^th September 2025. The order merely records the submission made by the Respondent-Bank to the effect that the Applicant had trespassed on the secured asset/property. This is the statement that Mr. Vaswani is aggrieved by and has sought to impugn in his challenge to the said order. In fact, his objection is also recorded in the said order itself. The said order then proceeds to record that the auction that was scheduled to take place on 5^th September 2025, did not take place and it has accordingly become infructuous and on that basis, the S.A. No. 413/2025 was disposed of as being infructuous.

We fail to see how the Petitioner can be aggrieved by such an

Page 2 of 3

------------------------------------Order dated 5^th December 2025

WP 13348/2025 Chanderlata vs. State of Mah.

order. In any event, if the Petitioner is desirous of challenging this order, there is a statutory remedy that is available to her to approach the DRAT. This is not a fit case for this Court to exercise extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

In the light of the Writ Petition is being dismissed, the Interim Application (ST) No. 36351 of 2025 taken out by the Petitioner does not survive and the same is also disposed of accordingly.

( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R.I. CHAGLA J. )

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI PRAKASH PRAKASH PAWAR PAWAR Date:2025.12.06 15:13:08 +0530

Shubham G. 12. WP 13348-2025

Page 3 of 3

------------------------------------Order dated 5^th December 2025