IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3654 of 2011 RAM PRASAD THAKUR, SON OF LATE MAHAVIR THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE FATEHPUR (AGANDA), P.S. DOBHI, DISTRICT GAYA……………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GAYA, THE REGIONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, A.P. COLONEY, DISTRICT GAYA. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH BODH GAYA, P.S. & P.O. – BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. 3. SRI UMAKANT TIWARI (FIELD OFFICER, S.B.I. BRANCH BODH GAYA) S/O NOT KNOWN, PRESENTLY STATE BANK OF INDIA RAMGARH CANTT. BRANCH, RAMGARH, JHARKHAND. 4. BINOD DAS, SON OF RAMCHANDRA DAS, R/O VILLAGE TIKA BIGHA, BHOJPUR BAGEICHA, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA……………………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Kaushlendra Kr. Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 02/ 26.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging demand notice under section 13 (2) as well as possession notice under 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 other ancillary reliefs. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he is a poor and illiterate constable and the respondents taking advantage of his situation got several blank cheques signed by him and sanctioned a loan of Rs.5 lacs although he was in need of a loan of Rs.3 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said - 2 - circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay all the demands raised by the respondents. 4. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the provisions of law it is quite apparent that if any person is aggrieved by a demand notice under section 13 (2) of the Act, he is entitled to make representation and raise objection under section 13 (3) (A) of the Act which the petitioner had not utilized. So far the possession notice under section 13 (4) of the Act is concerned, there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under section 17 of the Act and the petitioner without availing the said adequate and proper alternative remedy has filed this writ petition. Thus the appeal under the said provision is the proper, adequate and legal forum to decide the issue which the petitioner is raising before this court. 5. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any reason to entertain this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)