IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1177 of 2011 Prakash Chandra Yadav aged about 45 years son of Late Anandi Yadav, resident of Chirayatar, P.O. & P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. State Bank of India, a body Corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Centre at madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021 and one of its Local Head office at West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna 800 001 and one of its Branch Office amongst other places is known as State Bank of India Rehabilitation and Recovery Branch, 2nd Floor, Patna Main Branch Building, West of Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna represented through the Assistant General Manager, who is competent to verify and plead as per the Regulation 76 and 77 of the S.B.I. Regulation, 1955. 2. State Bank of India, stressed Assets Management Branch, Patna through (Chief Manager) Authorised Officer, 2nd Floor, Patna Main Branch Building West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800 001. 3. M/s Astha Enterprises, Partnership concern M-3/10 Sri Krishnapuri P.O. Patna, P.S. SriKrishnapuri, District-Patna. 4. Sri Mihir Kumar Jha, Partner/Guarantor son of Sri R.K.Jha, M/s Astha Enterprises, resident of 81B Ashiana Nagar, P.O. + P.S. Ashiana Nagar, District-Patna. …..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra Yadav ( in person) For the respondents : None. --------- 03/ 01.02.2011 On 31.01.2011 when the case was called out, learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. However, the petitioner himself appeared in person and submitted that his advocate is unable to come to court and hence he wanted to argue the case himself. In the said circumstances, he was permitted to cancel the vakalatnama of his counsel first and thereafter to approach this court. 2. Today, the petitioner Mr. Prakash Chandra Yadav appears in person and states that he has cancelled the vakalatnama of his advocate on record. He argues his case. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. - 2 - 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure-2) issued by the State Bank of India and its authorities under the provision of Section 13 (4) 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) and for other ancillary reliefs. An interim relief of stay of the impugned order has also been sought by the petitioner. 4. After some arguments, the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition in order to utilize alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. If the petitioner files such a statutory appeal before the appellate authority under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order and an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the authority concerned shall consider the delay caused due to the filing of this writ petition before this court and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner will also be entitled to file an interlocutory application for any interim order, if required, before the appellate authority which shall decide in accordance with law expeditiously. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)