HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 4041 of2008 Petitioner Siat. Maya Chaane, aged about 38 yrs. W/o Shri Anil Chaiuie, R/o Chopra Para, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Baak of Baroda, fhrough Chief Maaager, State Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Raipur. 2. Braach Maaager, Baak of Baroda, Braach Arabikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3. Aml Kuniar Chaiine, S/o Shri Bhau Rao Channe, R/o Chopra Para, Ambikapur, Distt. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rajnish Shrivastava, Advocate for fhe petitioner. O RD E R (oral) ( Passed on this 21st day ofJuly, 2009) Heard. The petitioner seeks a direction, restrainiag, the respondeuts No, 1 aad 2 to proceed wifh the auction of fhe property, pursuaat to fhe notice dated 19.6.2008 (Aunexure P/2). S. It appears fhat the respondent No.3 (Shn Anil Kuniar Chaane), husbaad of fhe petitioner (Snit. Maya Chaane) obtaiaed a loaa froni the Baak of Baroda, whereia the petitioner is a guaraiitor offhe loaii amount. As fhe respondent No.3 failed to deposit the loan ainount, a letter dated 17.1.2007 was written to tiie petitioner by the respondent/Baiik. In response to the letter dated 17.1.2007 fh.e respondent No.3 sent a proposal on 6.2.2007 (Annexure P/ 1), showiag his wiUiaguess to deposit fhe amount of loaa ia in.stallments. Accordrag to the petitioner, fhe respondent/Baak did uot reply to fhe proposal dated 6.2.2007, but proceeded to irdtiate proceediags under Section 13(4) of fhe IIINNK ^ 5. Securitisation aad Reconstruction of Fiaaacial Assets aad Enforceinent of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'fhe Act, 2002') by pubUcation of the notice dated 19.6.2008 (Annexure P/2) m fhe newspaper dated 24.6.2008, to put on auction fhe property of fhe petitioner. The petitioner approached fhis Court wifhout fumishuig all the relevaat docunients. Learaed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner sought aa adjourmnent on 28.7.2008 aad 29.7.2008, but no steps could be taken, Haviag heai'd learaed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner axid haviag perused fhe relevaat provisions of law, it is obvious fhat aa. alteraative statutoiy remedy is avaflable to fhe petitioner under Section 17 of fhe Act, 2002 agamst the order passed under Section 13 (4) ofthe Act, 2002, as stated ia titie impugned notice dated 19.6.2008 (Annexiire P/2). Thus, fhis petition is disinissed as not maintamable. However, liberty is reser^ed to fhe petitioner to take recourse to fhe altemative statutory forum that laay be available uuder provisions ofthe Act, 2002, tfso advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thalmr