IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(C) N0.N}S%/2006 PETITIONER R.Narayan Naidu S/o R.Appal amy, aged about 62 yrs, R/o Plot No. 3, Panchseel Nagar, Sangam Society, Chorada, B..Y. District— Durg (C.G.). 1. Chief Manager, Dena Bank Regional Office - Rukhmani RESPONDENTS Bhawan, Near Jairam Complex, Raipur (CIG.). $1 r 2. Shyamji Gond, S/o Chinta Ram Gond, aaged about 65 years, resident of 349/B, Zone— 2, Chorada, District - Durg (C.G.). 3, Branch Manager, H.D.F.C., Rukhmani Bhawan, near Jairam Complex, Raipur (C.G.).‘ , 4. State of Chhattishgarh, through Collector, Collectorate Building, Raipur (C.G.). C5; ,22g WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICL 227 OF THE 2G /Ii /‘ é CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r ea M VERSUS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2. None for the respondent No.3. Mr. N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerfor the State/respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 213‘ day of October, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case of the petitioner is that the Iand bearing Khasra No.407/2 plot No.3 (for short “the disputed preperty”) at village-Charouda, Patwari Halka No.2, Tahsil Patan, District—Durg,-was initially purchased by on.0e Vijay Kumar Barle from the colonizer namely Sangam Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Charouda, through the registered sale deed dated 24—05—2000. Thereafter, Shri Barle obtained loan of Rs. 3,23,000/— for construction of house from the respondent No.1 bank by mortgaging the disputed property, as secured asset. According to the petitioner/éarle sold the disputed plot to the respondent No.2, afterwards and therefrom the petitioner purchased the said property. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. The petitioner constructed the house on the said plot. However, all of a sudden, the petitioner received a notice dated 6-2-2006 under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the ‘ Act, 202"), with respect to the payment of loan amount to the tune of I WRIT PETITION (C) NO.7576 OF 2006 PETITION-ER R. Narayan Naidu Versus RESPONDENTS Chief Manager, Dena Bank & Others Rs.4,50,003/— addressed to Vijay Kumar Barle, thereafter, possession notice dated 14—2-2006 under the provisions of the Act, 2002, was also issued. The notice was affixed on the house of the petitioner, as the petitioner purchased the property after the same was mortgaged with the Bank as secured asset for obtaining loan by Vijay Kumar Barie. '3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Ltd [V petitioner has nothing to do with the bank loan, as the petitioner has never mortgaged the property in dispute with the Bank. 4. Be that as it may, since the property in dispute was mortgaged as secured asset by Barle before the same was transferred by sale to one Shyamji Gond and thereafter to the petitioner, it cannot be said that fixing notice and obtaining loan through the secured asset is not in accordance with law. Any order passed under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 is appealable under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 2002, The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither borrower nor guarantor, thus appeal may not be maintainable before the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 2002 does not merit . acceptance. 5. The Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Stayawati Tondon and Othersl, defined the word ‘any person‘ and held as under : “22‘ Section 17 speaks of the remedies avadlable to any person including the borrower who may have grievance against the action taken by the secured creditor under sub—section (4) of Section 13. Such an aggrieved person can make an application to the Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which action is taken under that sub—section. By way of abundant caution, an Explanation has been added to Section 17(1) and it has been 1 (2010) 83cc 11o clarified that the communication of reasons to the borrower in terms of Section 13(3-A) shall not constitute a ground for filing application under Section 17(1).” ln view of foregoing, it is indisputable that the property in dispute was. secured asset and, as such, the instant petition in exercise of extraordinary’jurisdiction under;Article'226 of the Constitution of lndia is not maintainable. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has observed that the remedy against the order passed under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002, is provided under the special act i.e. under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 20024 Thus, the petition under ArtiCle 225 of the Constitution of India is not i maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. However, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory forum that may ‘be available under the provisions of lawt Sd/- Satish K. Agnihetri i Judge l