IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18327 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 08, 2010. Ramesh Rani .....Petitioner versus Union of India and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Act'). One of the petitioner's grievances is that the objections submitted by her have been turned down by the `counsel' for the bank and not by an `authorised officer' who is obligated to decide it on merits under Section 13 (3A) of the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others), C.W.P.No .18327 of 2010 2 decided on 26.7.2010, I am of the considered view that the afore-stated plea can be taken by the petitioner while availing the alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal at an appropriate stage. Dasti. October 08, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE