IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4168 of 2011 ----------- Ramdei Devi, wife of Dukhi Singh, resident of village Mirjapur Dilia, P.S. Sasaram (T), District Rohtas …. Petitioner 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 State Bank of India, Administrative Office, J.C. Road, Patna 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sasaram Branch (Rohtas) 5. The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Sasaram Branch (Rohtas) … Respondents --------- For the Petitioner : M/s D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Bajrangi Lal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Alok K. Choudhary, Advocate ------- 04/ 10.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-State Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to remove locks from the dwelling house of the petitioner, which has been sealed in absence of the petitioner or her family members without giving her any notice as prescribed in Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ), specially when the petitioner was/is ready to make payment of loan amount and further for directing the respondents to consider the proposal of repayment of debt in reasonable instalments. 3. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that a notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued - 2 - in the month of October, 2009 (Annexure B) and in that notice the petitioner was shown to have received the same on 06.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the signature on the said notice is not her signature and she never received such notice. Thereafter, a notice under section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 09.02.2010 (Annexure `B’ series), in which the petitioner has been shown to have received the same on 10.03.2010. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner neither filed any objection under section 13(3)(a) of the Act nor did she file any appeal against the said notice. Finally an inventory was prepared on 28.01.2011 (Annexure `B’ series) and possession was taken over on the same day. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents also produced the order of the Collector as well as the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer with regard to possession as Annexures `C’ & `D’ to the counter affidavit. 5. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move before the appellate forum under the provision of section 17 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. However, if the petitioner files a statutory appeal with requisites under the said provision before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of this - 3 - writ petition and other facts enumerated in the writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. If the petitioner wants an interim relief, she will be at liberty to seek the same by way of filing an interlocutory application before the said authority. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)