IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13496 of 2011 M/S Trisole India Pharmaceuticals A Proprietorship Firm Having Office At Industrial Area Hajipur, Distt.- Vaishali Thru Proprietor Abu Mohammad S/O Late Abdur Rab R/O Mohalla- Lalbagh, P.S.- Pirbhore Town And District- Patna Versus 1. The United Commercial Bank Of India Thru Its Chairman-Cum Managing Director 2. The Deputy Zonal Head, United Commercial Bank, Zonal Office Mauryalok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna 3. The Chief Manager United Commercial Bank, Patna Main Branch, Exhibition Road, Patna 4. The Authorized Officer, United Commercial Bank, Patna Main Branch, Exhibition Road, Patna 5. The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department Of Industries Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 6. The Director Of Industries, Bihar, Patna ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Quaisar Hasan, Advocate For the UCo. Bank : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, A.C. to S.C.III ------- 02/ 19.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the letter no. ZOP/REC/MISC/2011-12/04 dated 18.07.2011 issued under the signature of Dy. Zonal Manager II whereby Notice of Auction Sale 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). Further the notice also stipulates that “the petitioner would come forward to adjust the loan to avoid the property from further action of Auction Sale”. (ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the - 2 - respondent Bank to allow the petitioner and the Department of Industries to carve out a scheme of rehabilitation of the entire industry which has been declared as Sick Unit by the State level Apex- Committee vide its order dated 07.05.2011, which is potentially viable enough of financial assistance. (iii) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondent specially the respondent Bank for taking any further action of recovery of outstanding loan dues from the petitioner firm as the unit has been declared sick by the respondent Director Industries, Department of Industries i.e. the apex committee and has been allotted registration no. Ind. Sickunit-Dir.Ind.310/2011. (iv) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent bank to extend cooperation to the petitioner firm in carrying out its industrial activity without persuading coercive step for recovery of outstanding dues by neglecting the efforts of rehabilitation under the Industrial Incentive Scheme 2006. (v) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondent Bank from auctioning the properties as contained in Auction Notice dated 18.07.2011 and auction stipulated on 18.08.2011 in view that the unit being declared sick by the Apex Committee as well as the compromise/amicable settlement is pending before the respondent Bank in view of the letter dated 09.05.2011. (vi) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which the petitioner is entitled for. - 3 - 3. Earlier the petitioner moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 342 of 2011 challenging letter dated 23.12.2010 issued by the Chief Manager, United Commercial Bank, Main Branch, Patna, by which the petitioner’s objection under section 13(3)(A) of the Act was disposed of and also challenging notice dated 04.11.2010 issued by the authorities of the Bank to the petitioner-firm under section 13(2) of the Act and further for directing the authorities of the Bank to allow the petitioner and the Department of Industries to carve out a scheme of rehabilitation of the entire industry and for restraining the respondents, especially respondent-Bank, from taking any further action of recovery of outstanding loan due from the petitioner-firm during the pendency of the rehabilitation endeavours and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said writ petition was contested and was dismissed by a detailed order dated 14.03.2011 considering every aspect of the matters involved and after coming to the conclusion that the authorities of respondent-Bank had tried their best to help the petitioner by restructuring loan but inspite of that the petitioner remained a wilful and continuous defaulter and did not even challenge the declaration of the respondent-Bank about the securities becoming non-performing assets (NPA), nor even letter dated 18.09.2010 sent by the respondent-Bank rejecting the request of the petitioner for providing financial aid had been challenged, hence it was found that the respondent-Bank had throughout acted in accordance with the rules of natural justice, fair play and equity and had taken steps as per the rules of procedure. Hence neither any impugned action/step taken by the respondents required to be interfered with nor they could be legally - 4 - restrained from proceeding with the matter under the provision of section 13 of the Act. 5. The said order passed in the writ petition was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner, who filed Civil Review No. 136 of 2011, which was dismissed on 13.05.2011 after coming to the conclusion that there was no error apparent on the face of the record nor there was any material, which convinced the Court to take a different view. Against the aforesaid order dated 13.05.2011 passed in the civil review petition, the petitioner filed L.P.A. No. 930 of 2011, which was also dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.06.2011 after observing that in absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, the appellant intended to argue the petition afresh on merits under the guise of review and the learned Single Judge had rightly rejected the review petition. 6. It transpires that, thereafter, the petitioner filed L.P.A. No. 1021 of 2011 against the original order dated 14.03.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 342 of 2011. The said letters patent appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.07.2011 after coming to the conclusion that having lost before the learned Single Judge the appellant, with a view to hampering the disposal of the secured assets, obtained a communication dated 06.05.2011 and hence there was no substance in the challenge of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Now after having lost twice before the Single Judge and twice before the Division Bench, the petitioner has approached this Court for the fifth time against the impugned order/actions, which respondent- - 5 - authorities are taking as per the decision of the Single Judge of this Court dated 14.03.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 342 of 2011, which has been twice affirmed by the Division Bench. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)