1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2458 OF 2010 Harichand S/o Rupchand Badera .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Akola Janta Commercial Co-op. Bank Ltd Akola and others .. Respondents Shri M. M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri D. R. Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 3 and 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 2 2. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition bearing No. 2011 of 2004 in respect of notice No. 38/2003 issued by the respondent/Bank. The writ petition was disposed of. Reasoned order was passed by Division Bench of this Court on 17.02.2005. Para No. 6, 7 and 8 of the said order reads as under : "6. At this stage, on our inquiry, Advocate Shri D. L. Agrawal for the creditor bank has shown willingness that the bank will not proceed with the matter pending before Cooperative Court till the time it is pursuing the remedy available u/s 13 of the Securatization Act. He has also agreed that before taking any further action pursuant to notice u/s 13(2), the creditor bank shall consider the say/objections tendered by petitioner vide his communication dated 19.08.2003 (Exhibit C to the petition - pages 37 to 40) and further say/objections, if any, those may be filed by petitioner within a period of one week from today i.e. on or before 24.02.2005. The effect of concession made by Advocate Shri D. L. Agrawal is practically relief to petitioner, by the creditor electing to proceed only under Securatization Act and not to proceed before the Cooperative Court atleast till the proceeding u/s 13 of the Securatization Act is taken to its logical conclusion resulting in, either results i. e. total recovery, partial recovery, frustrated recovery or recovery after some settlement between the parties. 7. In view of the concession by the creditor bank, 3 we find that the writ petition need not be continued any further. We accept the undertaking by Advocate Shri D. L. Agrawal on behalf of the creditor bank and dispose of the writ petition without any further order. 8. At the cost of repetition, we may say that the creditor bank shall consider say and objections filed by petitioner vide communication dated 19.8.2003 and additional say/objections those may be filed on or before 24.02.2005, on merits, and only thereafter, proceed with action, if any, under the Securatization Act. The bank shall not proceed with the proceeding pending in the Cooperative Court, Nanded, against present petitioner till the time the action under Securatization Act is not concluded." 3. The contention of the petitioner is that consequent to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2011 of 2004 written additional objections were filed with the bank on 24.02.2005 and the bank did not consider the objections and reply of the petitioner. As bank proceeded to take action under the Securatization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short Act of 2002), the petitioner approached the Collector Parbhani. By an order dated 15.03.2010, the Collector Parbhani stayed the proceeding initiated by the Collectorate. 4 4. Learned counsel Shri Hon placed on record a communication made by the bank to the petitioner dated 21.02.2005. The counsel submits that said communication was sent by Registered Post A.D., which was received by wife of the petitioner. The xerox copy of acknowledgment is also placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the said statement. 5. We find that the issue is pending unfortunately since last more than five years. The purpose of enactment of Act of 2002 is lost in the process. The bank ought to have been diligent enough to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 6. In the facts of the case, the bank shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner including the objections filed on 24.02.2005 and take a decision and comunicate the same to the petitioner within three weeks from today. 7. Learned counsel Shri Hon, submits that the bank would accordingly consider the objections and reply to the petitioner. 8. In view of the order passed above, the order passed by the 5 Collector dated 15.03.2010 will not be operative from today onwards. The order passed by the Collector is placed on record by Mr. Hon. The parties are free to resort to appropriate legal remedies as permissible in law thereafter. The petition stands disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/Mar.10