IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15044 of 2009 ***** 1. LALIT KUMAR S/O SRI MUSHAR YADAV R/O PLOT NO. 158, WARD NO. 34, CIRCLE NO. 251, C.D.A. COLONY, NORTH SHASTRI NAGAR, P.S- SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT- PATNA …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D.,P.N.B. 7, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER FIELD, BIHAR AND JHARKHAND, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, R-BLOCK, CHANAKYA PLACE, PATNA 3. THE CIRCLE HEAD, PATNA CIRCLE OFFICE, PATNA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, R- BLOCK, CHANAKYA PLACE, PATNA 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, PATNA CIRCLE OFFICE, PATNA, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, R-BLOCK, CHANAKYA PLACE, PATNA 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, PUNAICHAK, PATNA …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate ----------- 2. 13.11.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The irony of situation is not lost on to this Court. Petitioner who was part of the respondents at one point of time is now on the receiving end from his ex-employer. Since he also happens to be a borrower from the respondent Punjab National Bank for the housing loan which the petitioner had taken, a proceeding came to be initiated under the SARFAESI Act and as of now a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has came to be issued to the petitioner seeking to take possession of the secured asset. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at one hand despite the order of compulsory retirement has been passed, which is the subject matter of challenge before the High Court, they are not settling his other dues and on the other hand they are pushing the petitioner and - 2 - dispossessing him from his only property in a manner like this. These are matters which can be best raised by the petitioner before the D.R.T. for an appropriate appellate proceeding and he can request the Tribunal to furnish the details of the entitlement of the petitioner which is pending with the Bank. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the Bank about the petitioner having remedy within the ambit of the Act is well founded. No order, however, is required to be passed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner will have to first exhaust his remedy under the Act itself. The writ application is dismissed with above observation. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)