IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17778 of 2009 1. NANOSATI ICE & COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VILL- NANOSATI, P.S. MAJHAULIA, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SUBHAS PRASAD 2. SUBHAS PRASAD S/O SRI BAIJNATH PRASAD R/O VILL- NANOSATI, P.S. MAJHAULIA, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, A.D.B. BRANCH, BETTIAH THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER 2. CHIEF MANAGER (RURAL) REGION STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUZAFFARPUR 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN 4. GENERAL MANAGER, NETWORK I STATE BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE, GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 800001 ----------- 3 28/01/2010 This writ application is directed against a proceeding initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for certain outstanding loans to the cold storage in question and default thereof. Initially a show cause notice under section 13(2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioners and on their failure to respond within the statutory period of 60 days further action of possession has been effected under - 2 - section 13(4) of the said Act. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notice in question does not carry any date. This fact is also borne out from Annexure-B which has been brought on record in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In absence of any date indicated in the notice, there is no way for any citizen to calculate the statutory period of 60 days to respond to the said notice. When there is basic infirmity in the notice at the initial stage then the consequential action under section 13(4) of the said Act will also be misplaced. The petitioners have also brought certain materials on record to show that a kind of negotiated settlement was also going on between the parties but despite some agreement in this regard nothing substantial came to be done by the respondent Bank to facilitate resolving the issue. The facts being what they are and the date on the notice under section 13(2) of the said Act not having been introduced or prescribed, the proceeding under the said Act initiated against the petitioners seems to be in breach of section 13(2) of the said Act. - 3 - This writ application is allowed and the entire proceeding stands quashed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)