IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9981 of 2011 SMT. SHARDA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI HARENDRA PRASAD AKELA, R/O MOHALLA HAZIGANJ, P.S. CHOWK KALAM, DISTRICT PATNA……………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, ALLAHABAD BANK, BUDH MARG, PATNA 800001. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE ALLAHABAD BANK BUDH MARG, PATNA. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ALLAHABAD BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, PATNA. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK, B.N. COLLEGE CAMPUS, PATNA, MURADPUR, PATNA……………………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the Bank :Smt. Nilu Agrawal, Advocate. ----------- 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 auction notice dated 31.05.2011 published in the daily newspaper ‘Prabhat Khabar’ at the instance of the Authorized Officer of Allahabad Bank, Patna with regard to the house of the petitioner which was mortgaged with the bank for the loan taken by the petitioner. 3. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the proceeding under 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) had been initiated against the petitioner much earlier, whereafter demand notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was issued but the petitioner did not file any objection under section 13 (3)(A) - 2 - of the Act. It further transpires that possession notice under section 13 (4) of the Act was also issued but the petitioner did not file any appeal under the provision of section 17 of the Act. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the respondent bank had no option left but to issue the impugned notice for auction sale of the secured asset. Hence, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to take steps and file appeal as provided under the Act. This order will not affect the merit of the case in appeal. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)