IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12360 of 2011
Surya Deo Singh son of late Julumdhari Singh, resident of Mohalla-
Shankar Sonar Lane, New Godown, P.S.-Jotwali, District-Gaya.
.........Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank Of India Home Finance Limited through its General
Manager, 3rd Floor Abhishek Plaza, Exhibition Road, Patna.
2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India Home Finance
Limited, 3rd Floor Abhishek Plaza, Exhibition Road, Patna.
3. The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Gaya Branch, Gaya.
.......Respondents
-----------
For Petitioner:- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
For Respondents:- Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. R.S. Vidyash, Adv.
03 23.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging possession notice dated 18.02.2011 issued by the
Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Gaya and also the demand
notice dated 30.08.2010, issued by the said authority, by which the
petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 1,96,192/-, which was taken as
loan plus interest, as the said loan was taken by the petitioner on
09.11.1993, out of which the petitioner had already deposited
Rs. 20,000/- as fixed deposit at the time of execution of the loan and
had also deposited more than 10 instalments of Rs. 2,200/- each and
the petitioner has been ready to pay the rest principle amount and in
alternative prayed for one time settlement of the said amount also.
3. From the facts and circumstances of this case as well
as from the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and the
materials on record, it is quite apparent that the account of the
2
petitioner had been declared as non-performing assets much earlier,
whereafter notice dated 04.08.2010 (Annexure-9) was issued by the
respondents to petitioner for payment of the aforesaid amount.
Thereafter, the proceeding under the Securitization and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the shake of brevity) was
initiated and the notice under section 13 (2) of the Act dated
30.08.2010 (Annexure-2) was sent to the petitioner. No objection
under section 13 (3) of the Act was raised by the petitioner and hence
the respondents issued possession notice dated 18.02.2011
(Annexure-1).
4. The said facts clearly show that the petitioner had
not moved this Court either against the declaration of petitioner’s
amount as N.P.A, nor he had come to this Court immediately after
notices dated 04.08.2010 and 30.08.2010 claiming the proceeding to
be illegal, rather he had chosen to wait until possession notice is
given by the respondents to the petitioner. This Court does not find
any special reason to consider the prayer of the petitioner as he has
an adequate, efficacious and appropriate remedy under section 17 of
the Act for filing an appeal, in which he could have raised all the
points which he has taken in this writ petition.
5. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty
to file an appeal. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as
withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. If such an appeal is filed by
the petitioner along with a copy of this order as well as all the
3
requisites and also along with an interlocutory application for
condoning the delay within four weeks from today, the appellate
authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of this writ
petition and shall decide the appeal on its own merits in accordance
with law expeditiously.
(S.N.Hussain, J.)
Safik