Writ PetnionfC} No. 4123 of 2007 1. Smt. Sarol Sharma aged 48 years, w/o Shri Santosh Sharma Narayan Prasad Sharma s/'o Shrl M.L. Sharma aged 58 years Both : r/o Sarjoo Bagicha Masanganj: Bilaspur f 1) Puniab Nationai Bank through : The Authorized Officer Punjab Nationai Bank Zonal Office-CG Zone, Ivledicai Cojiege Road, Raipur CG The Manager, Punjab National Bank Sadar Bazar: Biiaspur CG (VVrit Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) S8: Hon'bie !^r. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri Anurag Dayai Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. (Passed on 16"' Juiy. 2007) The petitioners are guarantors to the ioan granted to Shri Yashwant Sharma, Smi. Pinki Sharma and Shri Sanjay Sharma by the respondent-Bank for purchase of jeep under the Scheme of Prime WSmister's Rojgar Yajana. The petitioners gave a surety by creating equitable mortgage of piot No.21/03, Sheet No.29 and the buiiding erected thereat in respect of said ioans. Shri Yashwant Sharma, Smt. Pinki Sharma and Shri Sanjay Sharma failed to make payment of ths ioan amount to the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bsnk by ie8er dafed 09.09.2006 issued notice to the petitioners u'nder Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financia! Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Aci, 2002 (for short 'the Act, 2002') to ensurs fhe payment of principai debt with interest to the tune of 2. Rs.2,92,342/-. The petitioners replled to the notice through advocate which reads as under:- •-L.../ "1. My client is stated to have stood as guarantor ofjoint loans @ of Rs.1,00,OQO- 00 each taken by Shri YashwanS Sharma, Smt. Pinki Sharma and Shri Sanjay Sharma for purchase of -Jeep in Prime ft^inister's Rojflar Yojana : P!MRY 2. The Vehicie : Jeep No. MP-2S-E- 9912 purchased out of the said amount Is staied to have been Hypothecated with the Bank. 3. Piot No. 21/03 Sheet No.29 and buiiding there-over situate ai Masanganj, Sarjoo Bagicha, Bilaspur owned and possessed by my clisnt is said to have bsen E/M in security ofthe said ioans. 4. My clieni has gathered thaf you no.1 has issusd notices cornmunicatinis'y your intention to proceed u/s 13(4) of the Securiijzation and Reconstruction of Financiai Assets and Enforaement of Security interest Act 2002 which apparentiy is not atfracted in this transactlon. 5. You are in wei'-know of the fact that security is not required In nnances under Prime Fvlinister Rojgar-Yojana even In Partnership Loans as is this case. A copy of the said scheme is enclosed for ready reference ; Page-3 : Point -9 : securitv. The guarantee/security if pbtained, therefore, is nui'-and void ab- initio and, therefore, it can not be acted upon under the said or any other Act. 6. My ciient is innocent and has delivered the titie-deed/slgned only to identlfy the borrowers. Neither she does mean to piace the documeni under E/M nor the stated E/M is competent nor the Prime Minlster Rojgar Yojana requires any (2) in response, the respondent-Bank submitted that the guarantors are under the obiigation to ensure the Dayment of debt amount .vith r~' ^- interest under the provistons of the Act, 2002. It v/as further stated that the amount of loan was more, that is why coiiaterai security was insisted upon given by the petitioners. 3) Being aggrieved, t'ne petitioners have filed this petitlon seeking foliowing reiief which reads as under:- "(1) caiiing for records from the RespondenSs relatlng to the subject matter ofthe Petiiion. (2) to deciare that the Guarantee taken by Bank from the Petitioners is invalld and void-ab-initio (3) to direct the Respondent Bsnk not to take any action against ths petitloners on the basis of stated incompetenf Guarantee and return the title-deeds etc. of She !and of the Petitioners which they have taken to create the stated equitabie mortgage. (4) to quash the demand notice dated 09-09-2006 ANNEX-P/2 : and datsd 27- 06-2007: ANNEX -P/5:". 4) Learned counsei appearing for the petltioners questions the amount and submits that the resDondent-Bank is not correct in statins that the ioan amount was more than the permissibie Simit therefore, coliaterai security was required. Learned counsel further relies on Ciause 9 of the Prime Minister's Rojgar Yojana to the effect that no guarantee was required for ioan amount up to Rs.1,00,000/-. 5) Be that as it may, ii invoives the disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction. Thus, the petition Is ^ dismissed as not maintainabie. However, the petitioners are at liberiy to take appropriate steps that may be available to thsm under civii iurisdiction. Sd/- .".; Satish K.Agnihotti . Judge I<fO'<-f/\A