IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19217 of 2010 ASHOK KUMAR SONI SON OF LATE HUKUM CHAND SONI, PROPERIETOR, M/S TARA CHAND AT KASHIPUR, MURLIGANJ SAHARSA DISTRICT MADHEPURA, BIHAR. ……PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, SAHARSA THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, SAHARSA. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, SAHARSA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MURLIGANJ BRANCH, MADHEPURA. 4. THE RECOVERY AGENT, REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, SAHARSA. ….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Arun Kumar & Sanjay Singh, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ---------- 04/ 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for commanding the respondents to open the locks of the premises of the petitioner which was forcefully locked after eviction of the petitioner by the Recovery Agency, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Saharsa and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it transpires that earlier demand notice dated 12.05.2007 (Annexure-1) under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) was issued by the respondents and thereafter possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act had also been issued by the - 2 - respondents on 20.09.2010 (Annexure-5). Thus, the proceeding having been initiated by the respondents as per the provisions of law has travelled to its conclusion by way of issuance of possession notice and taking of possession by the respondents, which is admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 20 of the writ petition. 4. Thus, the reliefs prayed by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted to him and the only remedy left to the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 5. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order and an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the authority concerned shall consider the delay caused due to the filing of this writ petition and shall decide the said case on its own merits in accordance with law expeditiously. 6. If the petitioner seeks any interim relief as was granted by this court vide order dated 26.11.2010, he will be at liberty to file an interlocutory application for the said purpose before the Tribunal which will decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)