IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9268 of 2009 RAM ANUJ SAH Versus SYNDICATE BANK & ORS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha,Adv. For the respondents: Mr. N.D.Choubey, Adv. 2. 5.8.2009 In view of the nature of the order being passed no notice is needed to be sent to Syndicate Bank. Learned counsel submits that he could not come across any lawyer representing Syndicate Bank in this Court. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for restraining the respondent bank from selling his property pursuant to action under section 13 (4) of the SARFACIE Act,2002. He further prays for directing the respondents to process the proposal in terms of R.B.I.guidelines. The petitioner was allowed over draft facility upto Rs.2,50,000/- by the Syndicate Bank, Kamaldah Branch in the district of Sitamarhi bearing A/c. No.SOD-2/2003, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.6/- lacs w.e.f. 23.4.2004 bearing new Account NO.ODMS 11/2004. Learned counsel submits that flood in July, 2004 damaged the petitioner’s shop and as such he was not in a position to make good his loss and pay the loan. He submits that the petitioner in para 10 of the petition has stated that the bank served notice dated 13.1.2009 upon him under the SARFAESI Act stating therein that as Khata No.316, Khesra No.1199, Thana No.317 was sought to be transferred to the bank as secured assets in default of making payment of the loan, the possession of the said property was 2 taken on 13.6.2009. He submits that the bank now proposes to auction the said property. He further submits that the stock of the shop had an insurance cover from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The petitioner also filed Complaint No.19/06 in the District Consumer forum at Sitamarhi. The Bank does not deny the insurance policy under taken by petitioner. However, the petitioner lost the case in the District Consumer Forum but nevertheless preferred appeal before the State Consumer Forum for a claim of Rs.6,60,003/-. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to make one time settlement with the respondent bank as per the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India. In the circumstance, this Court observes that in case the petitioner files a representation before the Syndicate Bank, the same would be considered and disposed of by a speaking order by the respondent bank either accepting the proposal or giving its counter proposal in terms of the guidelines of the R.B.I. in respect of such N.P.A. within four weeks from the date of filing of such representation. Status quo as existing today would be maintained for a period of four weeks. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek any other remedy available to him under the law also. 3 With the aforesaid direction this writ application is disposed of. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)