IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3645 of 2011 SMT.KIRAN DEVI, WIFE OF ARVIND KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAMAR KAND, P.S.- CHOSHI, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD …….PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER ALLAHABAD BANK, HEAD OFFICE-2, N.S. ROAD KOLKATA-1. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK MAIN BRANCH PATNA-1. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER ALLAHABAD BANK EXHIBITION ROAD PATNA-1. 5. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ALLAHABAD BANK MANDAL KARYALAYA, BUDDHA MARG, PATNA. …….RESPONDENTS For the petitioner: Mr. Shakil Ahmed Khan, Sn. Advocate. Mr. Gautam Pd. Budha, Advocate. For the Bank : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, Advocate. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 3. 08.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice of possession-cum-sale issued by Authorized Officer of Allahabad Bank Mandaliya Karyalaya Buddha Marg Patna-1 under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for the sake of brevity), published in daily Hindi Newspaper Hindustan(Annexure-3). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire Act of the authorities is absolutely illegal as the petitioner has been ready and willing to pay the amount due, but the authorities failed to fix installments. Learned - 2 - counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of leaned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, against any action taken under Section 13(4) of the Act the legislature has provided an appeal under Section 17 of the Act and the petitioner can raise all his grievances before the appellate authority under the aforesaid provision. 5. In the said circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. If the said appeal is filed within 15 days from today along with the copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused during the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 6. If the petitioner files an interlocutory application for interim relief claiming therein that he is ready and willing to pay the entire due amount in installments, the appellate authority shall consider the same and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Devendra/ ( S.N. Hussain, J. )