IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1122 of 2010 IN CWJC 347/2008 AND I.A. No. 6236 of 2010 ============================================ BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA S/O SRI INDRADEO SINHA R/O MOHALLA- POKHRA, SUBHASH NAGAR (HAJIPUR), P.S. TOWN HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR Versus 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER HAJIPUR BRANCH, HAJIPUR 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA HAJIPUR BRANCH, HAJIPUR 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MUZAFFARPUR 4. SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, HAJIPUR BRANCH, HAJIPUR ============================================ Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. RAGHUNATH SINGH, Mr. MARKANDEYA SINGH, Mr. KUMAR RAJEEV, Advocates. ============================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 04 23.08.2010 Re:- I.A. No. 6236 of 2010 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is made by the appellant for condonation of delay of 24 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay of 24 days caused in filing Letters Patent Appeal is 2 condoned. I.A. No. 6236 of 2010 stands disposed of. Re:-L.P.A. No. 1122 of 2010 The appellant/borrower has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26th March 2010 made by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 347 of 2008. It is not in dispute that the appellant had borrowed a loan from the respondent-Central Bank of India and that he failed to repay the loan. On 13th April 2007, the appellant approached the permanent Lok Adalat against the respondent- Bank for settlement of his account. The Bank did respond to the notice of the Lok Adalat but the settlement did not materialise. As the settlement failed, on 1st November 2007 the Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 calling upon the appellant to repay its outstanding dues of Rs. 4,92,724/- within 60 days. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred C.W.J.C. No. 347 of 2008 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. Therefore the present appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that once the appellant had approached the permanent Lok Adalat, until and unless the settlement was arrived at, the Bank was debarred from 3 proceeding further under the Act of 2002. In support of his submission he has relied upon Section 22C(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Section 22C provides for cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that “after an application is made under Sub-Section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute.” Mr. Singh has vehemently argued that the action of the Bank in issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 flies in the face of the aforesaid provision under Section 22C(2) of the Act of 1987. We are unable to agree with the learned advocate. Sections 22A to 22E contained in Chapter VIA of the Act of 1987 inserted by Act 37 of 2002 are made effective from 11th June 2002. Section 22A (b) defines ‘public utility service.’ The Banking service is not included in the said definition of ‘Public Utility Service’. Prima facie, it appears that the said Chapter deals with the disputes relatable to the Public Utility Services alone. Even if we accept that the provisions contained in Section 22C of the Act of 1987 apply to every dispute that is brought before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sub-Section (2) thereof imposes restriction on the party approaching any court of law. In the present case, the Bank has admittedly not approached any Court in respect of recovery of its dues except 4 that the Bank has issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act in exercise of the power of recovery of its outstanding dues by sale of the secured asset. Besides the notice under challenge was issued as far back as in the month of November 2007. We are not informed whether the Bank had taken any action pursuant to the said notice. Moreover, the appellant has not approached the Bank for settlement of his dues for the past three years. In above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed in limine. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)