1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1809 of 2011 ----------- J.M.B. Plywood Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at c/o Bajrang Saw Mill, Polytechnic Road, Near Industrial Estate, Saharsa through Its Managing Director, Sri Shyamal Kishore Singh, aged 65 years, son of late Ravindra Narain Singh, Hatia Gachi, Purab Bazaar, P.O. & P.S. Saharsa, District Saharsa. …Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Director of Industry-cum-Chairman State Level Apex Committee, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, Single Window System, Saharsa 5. General Manager, District Industry Centre, Saharsa 6. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Saharsa Branch, Saharsa 7. Regional Manager/Authorised Officer, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Saharsa 8. The Assistant General Manager, S.M.E. (S.B.U-1), State Bank of India, Local Head Office (5th floor), West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 9. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Saharsa Branch, Saharsa 10. The Regional Manager, Regional Office, State Bank of India, Saharsa. ….Respondents …….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the S.B.I. : Mr. K. K. Sinha, Advocate For the Central Bank of India: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : M/s.Rishi Raj Sinha, G.P. 19, Gopal Krishna, A.C. to G.P.19, Rakesh Pandey & Archana Sinha, Advocates. ------- 02/ 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State Bank of India and its authorities as well as learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) To quash the letter issued vide memo no.84-2/law dated 14.01.2011, whereby and whereunder the respondent Central Bank of India, Saharsa requested the D.M. , Saharsa to provide security 2 and maintain law and order during acquisition of the property of the petitioner. (ii) To command the respondent- Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Saharsa to stay the operation of the notice under section 13(2) of the Act and any further actions under the said Act (Annexure 8). (iii) To command the respondent-Banks- State Bank of India & Central Bank of India to provide all assistance and benefits for rehabilitation proposal of the petitioner as admissible to sick unit under Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006, rules & guidelines of RBI as well as the Bihar State Micro and Small Enterprises Rehabilitation Act, 2008 within a fixed time frame to rehabilitate the petitioner. (iv) To command the respondents to provide all assistance and benefits to the petitioner as admissible to SICK unit as provided under the Industrial Policy, 2006 of the State of Bihar. (v) To command the respondents no. 6 & 7 to restrain themselves from taking legal action to defeat the purpose of rehabilitation as envisaged and recommended by the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Institute of the Government of India. (vi) To command the respondents to restrain themselves from taking any further overt action detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action taken by the respondents, namely, the notice under section 13(2) and the steps under section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as `the SARFAESI Act’ for the sake of brevity ) were illegal and arbitrary as the application of the petitioner for rehabilitation of the unit under the Industrial Incentive Policy is pending before the State Level Apex Committee since 2001 and during this period the said Committee is proceeding with the matter, collecting materials etc. with respect to the petitioner- company, which has already been declared as a registered sick unit. 3 He further submits that inspite of the fact that no decision has been taken by the said Committee, the respondents are taking steps under sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argues that the impugned order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexure 18) was passed by the District Magistrate, Saharsa under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act although no step under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act had been taken. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued as far back as on 18.05.2007 (Annexure 10) and according to the impugned order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexure 18) , it was served on 10.09.2010, but no objection had been filed by the petitioner against it under section 13 (3A) of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it filed an application on 10.11.2010, but the same was not considered by the authorities before passing the impugned order of the Collector dated 14.01.2011 (Annexure 18). From the said communication of the petitioner dated 10.11.2010, it transpires that it is merely a letter sent by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Saharsa. 6. Such a letter cannot be legally presumed to be an objection under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, which has to be specifically worded in that regard and has to be sent to the authorized officer of the Bank. No such step having been taken by the petitioner, it is quite apparent that no objection to the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been filed by the petitioner. 7. So far the pendency of the petitioner’s application 4 before the State Level Apex Committee is concerned, such a point should have been raised by the petitioner in its objection under section 13(3A) of the Act. Such step not having been taken by the petitioner inspite of passage of more than sufficient time, the authorities were quite justified in taking appropriate steps in that regard. Furthermore for taking any step under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the authorities will have to take steps under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as is apparent from a bare perusal of the provision of section 14 of the SARFAESI Act itself. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order/action of the authorities concerned. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )