IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.95 of 2009 RAJ PANDEY, son of Sri Satendra Prasad Pandey, resident of Uma Charan Bose Lane, Kharman Chak, P.S.- Adampur, District- Bhagalpur. ….Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The Indian Bank through its Authorised Officer & Chief Manager, namely, Nikhil Kumar Sarkar, Circle Office, Govind Bhawan, New Dakbangla Road, Patna. 2. Shri Nikhil Kumar Sarkar, Authorised Officer & Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Circle Office, New Dakbangla Road, Patna. 3. The Manager, Indian Bank, Ratan Complex Branch, 4-Patal Babu Road, Bhagalpur. ….Respondents/Respondents ----------- 3/ 01.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order under appeal. Only on technicalities, the writ petitioner/ appellant wants to avoid any payment to the respondent-Bank. The writ court has given sufficient relief to the appellant by asking him to deposit only rupees two lacs by 31st Decembers, 2008, and thereafter the bank has been asked to reply to petitioner’s protest with regard to rate of interest as to whether it should be 12% or 16%. The bank was to reply by 15th January, 2009. The writ petitioner/appellant thereafter was required to liquidate the dues along with the interest at the rate of 12%, which he himself admits in full, by 31st March, 2009. So far as the disputed interest is concerned, the petitioner was given a right to agitate the matter further after decision by the bank within one month of the deposit of rupees two lacs. From the records of this appeal, we find that the same was permitted to be dismissed for want of prosecution but has been restored again. It is admitted that rupees two lacs have not been paid by the appellant by 31st December, 2008. - 2 - The only submission advanced before us is that the protest or representation of the writ petitioner/appellant was filed with the bank but no formal order in that regard has been communicated to the writ petitioner/appellant. In the facts of the case, the writ court has given substantial relief to the writ petitioner/appellant so as to save himself from SARFAESI Act but the bonafide of the writ petitioner/appellant is clearly lacking. Hence, he does not deserve any help in exercise of a writ jurisdiction. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has made a request that time for deposit of rupees two lacs and all other time limits be accordingly extended so that the writ petitioner/appellant may avail the benefits given to him by the writ court. In the facts of the case, the aforesaid limited request is accepted and the time limit for depositing rupees two lacs is extended by four weeks from today. All other time limits indicated in the order under appeal would stand extended accordingly. With this modification in the order under appeal, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. JA/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Anjana Prakash, J.)