IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1952 of 2011 M/s Mahalaxmi Fancy Bartan Bhandar through its Proprietor Krishna Prasad Sah, S/o late Gauri Sah, R/o Mohalla Arya Nagar, Murad Tola, P.S.- Ram Nagar, District-West Champaran. ………. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Bank of India, Mumbai through its General Manager. 2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Hari Nagar, West Champaran, Bihar. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Harinagar Branch, Hari Nagar, West Champaran. 4. The Bank’s Enforcement Agency namely M/s Akash Recovery Service Private Limited, Patna through its Managing Director. 5. The National Insurance Company Limited having its registered office at 3 Milleton Street, Calcutta-700071 through its Senior Divisional manager. 6. The General Manager of the National Insurance Company Limited, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company Limited, Bettiah, West Champaran. ….. Respondents. ----------- 2. 03.02.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Bank of India. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging possession notice dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure-8) issued by the Chief Manager, Harinagar (Respondent no. 2) with respect to immovable property of the petitioner and also for restraining the respondents from taking physical possession of the said immovable property and for a direction to the authorities of the Bank to recover Rs. 96,000/- from National Insurance Company and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It transpires that steps were taken by the authorities under section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - 2 - on 19.10.2009 (Annexure-6) and the same was never challenged but in spite of that, the petitioner made only partial payments and still Rs. 2.49 lakhs plus interest remained due and hence, the authorities were compelled to issue possession notice dated 07.10.2010(Annexure-8), which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter as it is for the authorities to pass appropriate order in this regard. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sujit (S. N. Hussain, J.)