IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7007 of 2011 1. NILMANI MINJ, WIFE OF PREM CHAND KUMAR. 2. PREM CHAND KUMAR, SON OF KULWANS KUMAR, BOTH RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA- NEW AREA, P.S.- SASARAM (T), DISTRICT-ROHTAS …….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAWAN, 4TH FLOOR, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK BHAWAN, 4TH FLOOR, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGION-5, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, HARIJIKAHATA, ARA. 4. THE CHIEF BRANCH MANAGER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, SASARAM MAIN BRANCH (ROHTAS). 5. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, SASARAM MAIN BRANCH (ROHTAS) ……RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dr. Binay Kumar, Singh, Advocate. ----------- 04. 23.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for directing the respondents to unlock sole dwelling house of the petitioners which was sealed on 15.02.2011 in absence of the petitioners and their family members without observing procedures prescribed in the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 for which no notice was ever served upon petitioners and also for directing the respondents to provide settlement of accounts to the petitioners and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had taken loan - 2 - from the respondent-bank and due to non-payment the assets were declared NPA by the bank on 04.08.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that without taking any steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act the premises of the petitioners has been taken in possession and they have been dispossessed, although when on 04.08.2008 the assets were declared NPA the total amount due was Rs. 2,23,000/- out of which the petitioner had already paid Rs. 1,85,000/- and odd. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the provisions of section 31(h) and Section 31(j) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after declaring of the assets and securities as NPA on 04.08.2008, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 05.12.2009 and even after receipt of the said notice no objection was filed by the petitioner and ultimately notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 10.03.2010, whereafter paper publication of the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also made on 14.03.2010. He submits that the said notices were never challenged by the petitioners and hence the authorities were quite justified in taking possession of the premises in question. He further submits that the contention of the petitioner with respect to the amount due with interest is wrong and much higher amount is due against the petitioner. 5. From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that proceeding under the Act had been initiated by the respondents authorities against - 3 - the petitioners but in spite of paper publication of notice under Section 13(4) of the Act they did not take any step nor did they challenge the same before the tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. 6. In the said circumstances, the impugned action of the authorities cannot be held to be illegal. Furthermore, the question of facts with regard to service of notice and the amount dues could have been considered in the appeal filed against the aforesaid notice and not before this Court as it is a disputed question of fact requiring evidence etc. 7. After the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 8. The prayer is allowed and this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However if the petitioner files an application before the aforesaid tribunal within 15 days from today along with a copy of this order and also along with an interlocutory application for condoning the delay the Appellate Tribunal shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously. Devendra/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)