s'""t=Si!!'SSSE!SSW;se"!SSX!^»iaS^»<llt--'..•:• (5? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 4~2=S op 2006 %^'E^^» K^ PETITIONER ^" Vs RESPONDENTS ;;•' ^•j-'^.y ^ ^^/ x^y ^y •^ •// Hernold Timothy Lewis, son of Late Gabriel Gasper Lewis, aged about 44 years, Proprietor- M/s Maa Velankanni Enterprises, Awasthi Complex, Baijnath para, Raipur. 1. Allahabad Government undertaking Bank, a of India inter-alia amongst other branches a branch office at Raipur and Zonal Office at Opposite Mandi Gate, Pandri, Raipur. 2. Mahamaya Enterprises, through Shri Vimal Chand Awasthi, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Krishna Kumar Awasthi, Awasthi Complex, Baijnathpara, Raipur. 3. Vimal Chand Awasthi, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Krishna Kumar Awasthi, Awasthi Complex, Baijnathpara, Raipur. 4. Krishna Kumar Awasthi, aged about 72 years, son of Shri Anand Deen Awasthi, Awasthi Complex, Baijnathpara, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 SB 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIPJL^OJPL INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS /CERTIORAR! ETC OR DIRECTIONISt / ORDERISI IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC; ^ :i: L .-(<* aa%. //sssi fl ..^ffas.. •^s^^^^ fs^^f--""^ %. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.423.0F2006 Hemold Timothy Lewis Versus Allahabad Bank & Others ashok (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER_(ORAL1 (Passed on this 30th day of August, 2010) 1. Hearo' leamed counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to criallenge the legality and. vaiidity of the notice (Annexure P/4) issued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiai Assets and Enforcetnent of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act, 2002"). 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly and fairly submit that the issue involved in the case on hand is identical to the case of Smt. Kavita Sharma v. State Bank of India & Others and other connected matters, and pray that the present petition may be disposed of in the same terms. 4, Accordingly, the present petition is no.t maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 2002. Thus, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under the provisions of the Act, 2002. 5. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \^y W.F. (C) No.3466 of 2007 (decided on 5/8/2010)