IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8438 of 2008 GAYA MAHTO Versus THE REG.MANAGER,S.B.I.,PATNA&O ----------- 2 16/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ application seems to be misplaced because it is challenging the notice which has been served upon the petitioner by the so called authorized recovery agent of the State Bank of India. This Court would not like to exercise this power upon an individual. If there are outstanding dues against the petitioner, the petitioner would be well advised to approach the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Samastipur, demand details of accounts and thereafter take steps for settlement of the dues within the time frame. This writ application is disposed of with the above observation. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)