IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13849 of 2011 Gopal Prasad S/O Late Chabida Mahto R/O Vill.-Rasida Chak, Pahari, P.S. Agam Kuan, Distt.-Patna. … Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman, State Bank Of Patiala, Sirhind Road, Patiala, Pumjab. 2. Zonal Manager, State Bank Of Patiyala, Bari Path, Punjab. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of Patiyala, Baripath, Patna. …Respondents -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh,Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pradeep Kumr No.1,Advocate --------- 03/ 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reschedule the Housing loan and car loan of the petitioner and re-fix a reasonable instalment as per the outstanding dues on the same interest on which the petitioner had taken housing loan in 2004. (ii) Respondent-the State Bank of Patiala may be restrained for taking any coercive action against the petitioner. (iii) Alternatively it is further prayed that if the first prayer is not allowed, then the respondent may be directed to allow the petitioner to exercise the option of one time settlement under the banking rules and regulations, considering the illness of the petitioner as well as pitiable financial condition of the petitioner. (iv) This Hon’ble Court may adjudicate and hold it is the duty of the respondent bank to consider the proposal given by the petitioner for re-scheduling his account of even for one time settlement. (v) This Hon’ble Court may further adjudicate and hold if the petitioner is ready to pay the housing loan amount of the 2 bank, it was the duty to bank to reschedule the loan amount and refix the monthly instalment considering the condition and conduct of the petitioner. (vi) To award any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the petitioner is a loanee and his assets have been declared as non-performing assets, whereafter a proceeding under 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 ) had been initiated and demand notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued. Thereafter, possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act has also been issued by the respondents. 4. Against the said notice an appeal is provided under section 17 of the Act, where the petitioner can raise all the points, which he has raised before this Court. Hence learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority under the provision of section 17 of the Act. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner files an appeal within 15 days from today along with all the requisites and a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the filing of this case and shall decide the appeal on merits expeditiously. If the petitioner wants to seek any interim order, he may 3 file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority which shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law without any delay. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)