IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20585 of 2011 Paresh Goswami, son of Sri Prafulla Chandra Goswami, resident of Muhalla Kayastha Tola, Ward No.28, P.S. & District Saharsa. …Petitioner Versus 1. The UCO Bank, through its Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, at Sona Jageshwar Complex, Traffic Chowk, Begusarai. 2. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Dharamshala Road, Saharsa … Respondents ------------------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the UCO Bank : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate ------------------ 02/ 23.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-Bank and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) For issuance of appropriate writ order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice issued to the public under section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 through the news paper to the extent it direct auction of petitioner’s 5 Kathas land in which the petitioner resides and used to do business of Kirana shop. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to compromise with the petitioner under the R.B.I. guidelines and provide reasonable periods of time, maximum of six months enabling the petitioner to deposit the dues amount which remain unpaid due to the circumstances beyond control of the petitioner. (iii) Declaration be issued that any delay which occurred due to national calamity declared by the 2 Central Government with regard to devastating flood of Kushha Dam and due to accident of petitioner in which leg of the petitioner was fractured. (iv) For grant of any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner be found entitled in law be granted to them. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has taken a loan, which was not repaid timely and hence his secured assets were declared as non-performing assets (NPA) and a 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 ) was initiated, in which demand notice was issued on 22.09.2010 (Annexure 1). Thereafter, possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 02.12.2010, which was served upon the petitioner on the same day. Subsequently sale notice has also been issued by the authorities on 16.11.2011 (Annexure 6/1), whereafter the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 4. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provision of section 17 of the Act against the possession notice issued under section 13(4) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the said liberty. However, if the petitioner files an appeal within fifteen days from today along with all requisites and a copy of this 3 order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the said authority shall consider the delay caused due to predicaments of the petitioner and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months thereafter. If the petitioner requires any interim order, he may file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority, which must decide it expeditiously. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)