IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7717 OF 2009 RAJ ELECTRONICS, NEW PUNJAB RADIO AND SMT SANGITA PRASAD SINGH VERSUS CANARA BANK, MAIN BRANCH, DEPUTY GM, EXHIBITION ROAD, ASSTT GM, CANARA BANK,G.MAIDAN, ADVANCE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK AND MANAGER, CANARA BANK ----------- 2 14.07.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 18.9.2008, issued by Authorized officer (respondent no.5), Canara Bank, Patna contained in annexures 1 and 2 under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein referred to as the Act). The petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid notice, he filed a representation dated 15.12.2008 before the Assistant General Manager (AGM)/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, South Gandhi Maidan, Patna regarding settlement of the dues. The petitioner stated that he is willing to pay 70 lakhs within a short time. He further submits that the aforesaid representation bears the receipts of bank. On 24.1.2009 the petitioner submitted another representation to the Asstt General - 2 - Manager enumerating the amount of time within which he would pay the dues. Grievance of the petitioner is instead of disposing of the representation under section 13(3-A) of the Act, the respondents proceeded under section 13(4) of the Act which is without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision rendered in case of M/S Prachi Exim India Ltd and others versus the State Bank of India and others, reported in 2008(1) PLJR 585. Learned counsel while referring to para 3 of the judgment stated that court has held that the respondent bank without dealing with the objection of the petitioner as was required by them to be done under section 13(3-A) of the Act provided to precipitate auction. This court further held that such auction cannot be held to be legal. Thus learned counsel submits that the instant proceedings are too without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents bank submits that this writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner ought to have resorted to provisions of section 17 of the Act. He further submitted that objections should have been made to the Authorized officer and not to the Assistant General Manager of the Bank. He further submitted that annexure 4 cannot be treated - 3 - as an objection/representation under section 13 (2) of the Act. He further submits that endorsement of receipt on the representation contained in annexures 3 and 4 has been deceitfully procured. He submits that some more cases are pending in DRT against petitioners. Various issues have been raised by parties for adjudication. Thus, in my view, it would be appropriate that petitioners approach DRT for redressal of his grievance under section 17 of the Act. The notice regarding auction sale contained in annexure 7 is stayed for four weeks as an interim measure. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Shashi (S. P. Singh, J.)