C.SAU0' •^L' IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR w.p.No. /^/y op: PETITIONER : / t^- ^i<-<^-'"'\. ..f"'^r^'' ..•••' /?-"'-f<S^'-''"' ...-•'" ).^^i>\..---"' ^•••^^^•^"" .«^">-" .0' ,< -/' nf3 ^^y .^ ^'^6. ^" d^ / 1) Mirza Salun Baig, S/o- Late Mirza Nasir Baig, Aged about 46 years Resident of Om Nagar, Jaihabhata, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2) Deepak Samual S/o- Late S.K. Samual, Aged about 37 years R/o- Tifra, Tahsil and Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) tl 3) Arun Singh Thakui S/o- Late Shri B.S. Thakur Aged about 45 years R/o- Kali Mandir Tifra, TahsU and Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) /^!^5 /4) Subhash James S/o- WaUlce James Aged about 50 years R/o- Village Ameri, TahsU TakhatpTu Distt- Bilaspui (C.G.). VERSUS B. / RESPONDENTS: :c / 1) Cent Bank, Through its Branch Manager Home Finance Limited, subsidiary Central Bank of India, Surya Bhawaii Jzma BUaspur (C.G.) 2) Cent Bank, Hoine Finance Lrmited Through its Managing Director, Bhopal, 9 Area HiUs, Jail Road Bhopal (M.P.) /3) Sub Divisional Magistrate, BUaspur Disbrict BUaspur (C.G.) 4) TahsUdar BUaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226^27 OFTHE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITIONNo. 1214 of2006 Mirza Salim Baig & Others. VERSUS Cent Bank & Others. WRIT PETI'nON UNDER ARHCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSIITtmON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aa-mhotri. J. Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri SubhashYadav,AdvocatefortherespondentNo. 1&2. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondentNo.3&4. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 07th day of July, 2010) . 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission of this court to withdraw this petition on account of availability of stahitory remedy under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2,002 (hereincfter referred to as 'the SARFAESIAct, 2002') by filing an application before the Recovery Tribunal under tfae provisions ofsection 17 ofthe Act, 2002. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for other side have no objection. 3. It is ordered accoiyiingly. 4. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty, as aforestated. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit