IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10251 of 2011 PRAMOD KUMAR S/O LATE MADAN LALL R/O VILLAGE NADAON, P.S. BUXAR(M), DISTRICT BUXAR, AT PRESENT R/O JASO ROAD, P.S. BUXAR(IND)DISTRICT BUXAR……………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, DUMRAON, DISTRICT BUXAR. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA. REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ARA. DISTRICT BHOJPUR. 3. CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA, DISTRICT PATNA………………….…RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 22.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging possession notice dated 03.06.2011 issued by the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Bhojpur under the provision of section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and for directing the respondents not to take possession or to sell or to take any step against the mortgaged property of the petitioner as it is his residential house and to realise dues as per the agreement from the salary of the petitioner, who is an employee of the Electric Department and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding under the Act was initiated without any notice to the petitioner nor he was served with any notice under section 13(2) of the Act and all of a sudden the impugned notice under section 13(4) of the Act has been issued. He further submits that according to the - 2 - agreement recovery had to be made within 20 years and as such the respondents are recovering the amount of loan from the petitioner’s salary account in the same bank, as the petitioner is an employee of the Electric Department. Hence, he submits that there is no occasion for taking any such step under the Act. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite apparent that against notice under section 13 (4) of the Act specific provision of appeal has been provided under section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the petitioner can take all the points in appeal which he has taken in the instant writ petition. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the aforesaid authority under the provisions of the Act. However, if such an appeal is filed within four weeks along with all the requisites and 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 the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. However, if the petitioner requires any interim order he may file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority, who shall decide it immediately without any undue delay. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)