IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21661 of 2011 Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, Proprietor and Partner of M/s R.S. Sales and M/s S.R. Sales respectively, Shop no. 17, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna District Patna, presently residing at Flat No. 402, Block-B, Narayan Coty Apartment, Braham Sthan Road, Sheikhpura Patna, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna-14. … Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India 2. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch 2nd Floor of S.B.I. Patna Main Branch Building, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna 3. Chief Manager, S.B.I. S.C.B. Dak Bunglow Road Branch District Patna … Respondents . -------------- For the Petitioner : M/s Bindhyachal Singh and Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Advocates For the Respondents : Dr. Binay Kumar Singh and R.S. Vidyarthi, Advocates ------------- 02/ 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 15.11.2011, by which the Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Patna informed the petitioner that his property has been put on auction for sale by the said authority on 15.12.2011 and also for directing the respondents to stop the aforesaid auction proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity). 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a loanee and due to default in payment of loan his secured assets were declared - 2 - as non-performing assets and a proceeding under the Act was initiated and demand notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued, but the petitioner did not file any objection inspite of receiving the said notice. Thereafter, possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act was issued by the respondents, whereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent-Bank and there was an agreement dated 28.06.2011 (Annexure 4), by which the petitioner was to pay the total dues in ten quarterly instalments, beginning the quarter ending September, 2011 of Rs. 4.20 lacs each along with interest accruing thereupon. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not pay the first instalment, whereafter the impugned auction notice dated 15.11.2011 was issued by the respondent-Bank. Now learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to pay the instalment of September,2011 with interest by tomorrow i.e. 14.12.2011 and undertakes before this Court to pay the next and subsequent instalments regularly as per the agreement. 5. In this regard, there is a specific provision under section 13(8) of the Act and if the petitioner seeks any further consideration by the respondent-Bank, the petitioner may move the authorities of the Bank themselves. This Court has to stick to the procedures and provisions under the Act and since no case for violation of any provision of the Act has been made out, this Court cannot interfere in such matters. 6. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the above - 3 - mentioned Assistant General Manager of the Bank along with the amount of the first instalment due with interest thereon as well as an application and it will be for the authorities themselves to consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)