1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8523/2007. Rajasthan Synthetics Industries Ltd. and Another. VERSUS The Authorized Officer under the Securitization Act, B.O.B., Jaipur and Others. 09.07.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Paras Kuhad, for the petitioners. Mr.K.J.Mehta, for the respondent Bank. ***** In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following prayer:- “(a) restrain the Authorized Officer (Under Securitization Act, the Bank of Baroda) and the Bank of Baroda from dispossessing the petitioners from the demised premises situated at 1, Ganesh Colony, Moti Doongari Road, Jaipur. (b) declare the proceedings for dispossessing the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. (c) respondents be further restrained to dispossess the petitioner without due process of law. (d) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners.” In response to the notice, the respondent- Bank, the Bank of Baroda has also put in appearance and filed their reply. As would be evident from the above, the grievance of the 2 petitioners that the respondent-Bank has proceeded to recover the possession of the property giving a go-bye to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by appointing a private agency to forcibly evict the petitioners and take possession of the premises. Learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset frankly submitted that the respondents would only proceed against the petitioners in pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 13 and 14 of the Act of 2002 for obtaining possession and not in any other manner. It has also been submitted that till date the respondents have not resorted to any action as envisaged under Section 13 sub- section (4) or Section 14 of the Act and that the present petition is pre-mature, though a notice has been served upon the petitioners by the counsel for the respondent- Bank. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent shall only proceed against the petitioners to take possession of the premises 3 in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act of 2002 and that no action has been taken against the petitioners by the respondent-Bank so far in terms of Section 13 (4) or Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the interest of the petitioners is well protected and in view of the fact that no steps have been initiated by the respondents so far as envisaged under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the Act of 2002, I find no reason to interfere. This writ petition being pre-mature is dismissed accordingly. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.