WP(C) 1687/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-8 notice dated 22..1.2010 issued to him by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of S ARFAESI Act, 2002/Loan A/C as SBE-156. By the said notice, it was notified that the total aggregate amount recoverable from the petitioner stood at Rs.50,27,61 0/-. The fact that the petitioner obtained a loan from the respondent-Bank am ounting to Rs.39,00,000/- is not in dispute. However, what has been contended in the writ petition is that the petitioner is not liable to pay any interest as p er the scheme of the Reserve Bank of India and that the Bank cannot charge the a foresaid amount without first adjusting the security deposits. Another ground ur ged is that the proposal for one time settlement for liquidation of the loan is pending consideration of the Bank. In this connection, the petitioner has produc ed the copy of the letter dated 5.5.2010 addressed to the Chairman of the respon dent-Bank on the subject of one time settlement of the aforesaid term loan. The petitioner has annexed Annexure-7b representation dated 29.7.2009, which was als o on the subject of compromise settlement of the aforesaid term loan. As regard s the payment of interest on the term loan, the respondents have clarified the p osition in the counter affidavit. It has been stated that the petitioner having obtained the loan is bound to pay interest on delayed payment. In this connectio n, they have stated in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit that interest has b een charged as per sanction terms which was accepted by the petitioner. Annexure -2 is the loan sanction letter dated 10.1.2003, which also clearly indicates the rate of interest. As regards the plea of the petitioner that the securities furnished by t he petitioner which are required to be adjusted against the outstanding dues, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has al ready been adjusted from the security deposit. This now leads us to the third plea of the petitioner that during penden cy of the Annexure-7b representation dated 29.7.2009 followed by representation dated 5.5.2010, the respondent-Bank ought not to have taken coercive measure so as to issue the impugned notice dated 22.1.2010 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition ). I have heard Ms P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner as we ll as Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel representing the respondent-Bank. While Ms P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissio ns in tune with the aforesaid assertion made in the writ petition, Mr. Dutta, le arned counsel for the respondent-Bank, upon a reference to the stand in the coun ter affidavit, submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. He has pl aced reliance on decision of this Court reported in AIR 2007 Gauhati 132 (Nihar Ranjan Bhattacharjee v. Union of India), in which it has been held that under th e scheme of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the aggrieved party having had the recourse to a lternative remedy, the writ Court will be reluctant to interfere with such matte r. As has been held in that case that after issuance of Section 13(2) notices u nder the Act, the respondent-Bank would be entitled to take recourse to the proc edure laid down in Section 13 (4) of the Act and thereafter, the aggrieved party would be entitled to prefer appeal. In the instant case also, the petitioner i s aggrieved by Annexure-8 notice dated 22.1.2010 issued under Section 13 (2) rea d with Section 13 (13) of the Act. The consequential action will be as provided under Section 13 (4) of the Act and thereafter, if aggrieved, it will be open for the petitioner to file an appeal as per the provisions of the said Act. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already approached the respondent-Ba nk by the aforesaid Annexure-7b representation followed by the representation da ted 5.5.2010, copy of which has been produced by the learned counsel for the pet itioner, I dispose of this writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner to a pproach the respondent-Bank for consideration of his case in terms of the said r epresentations. In the event of approach being made, the respondent-Bank may di spassionately consider the case of the petitioner without being influenced by t his order. At this stage, Ms P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha t the petitioner has in the meantime, deposited certain amount. The respondent- Bank will duly take note of the same. Writ petition is disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.