IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9316 of 2011 M/S BABU COLD STORAGE, THROUGH ITS ONE OF THE PARTNERS, NAMELY, SARFARAZ ALAM, SON OF MAHMOOD ALAM, RESIDENT OF ALAM MANZIL CHURI PATTI, KISANGANJ, BIHAR……………………....PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS ZONAL MANAGER, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, B – BLOCK, P.O. + P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. PATNA. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, BHATTA BAZAR, P.O. + P.S. – PURNEA, DISTT. PURNEA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, HOSPITAL ROAD, P.O.+P.S. – KISHANGANJ, DISTT. KISHANGANJ……………….………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.Ashfaque, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 06/ 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-Central Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging demand notice dated 25.04.2011 under section 13(2) of 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). It is also alleged that the said notice is illegal, unwarranted, discriminatory, issued with biased approach against the spirit of Circular dated 05.07.2007 issued by Reserve Bank of India and not in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rate of interest : @ PLR (Prime Lending Rate) P.A. if NABARD approves the project and releases subsidy, otherwise the rate of interest will be charged @ PLR + 4% p.a. He further submits that - 2 - Annexure-B series to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents clearly show that interest on term loan and overdraft has been calculated @ 18.25% p.a. and 22% p.a. although Prime Lending Rate for the period concern for both the items was 14% and hence the notice under section 13(2) of the Act itself was not legal and proper and there has been some default in payment of refund of money as per the terms of the agreements and the secured assets of the petitioner have been declared NPA (Non- Performing Assets). Thereafter the proceeding under the Act was initiated and notice under section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner on 25.04.2011 (Annexure-6). Although learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that he filed an objection to the said notice on 07.06.2011 (Annexure-9), but the said Annexure clearly shows that it is not an objection rather by the said letter the petitioner had demanded the authorities to supply some documents including a copy of the aforesaid notice under section 13(2) of the Act, as the said notice was not served upon the petitioner. 4. However, it transpires that thereafter the petitioner got a copy of the said notice and challenged it in the instant writ petition. At the time of filing of the writ petition, 60 days from the date of the said notice had not lapsed and the petitioner had an opportunity for filing an objection to the said notice under section 13(2) of the Act. Thereafter possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act was also issued on 27.06.2011 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). - 3 - 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is a clear illegality in the notice under section 13(2) of the Act which is against sanction letter as well as the Prime Lending Rate applicable to the petitioner, this matter can be considered and decided by this court. 6. After considering the entire arguments and the facts of this case, it transpires that all the questions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the alleged violation of the prescribed rules by the respondents, can be fully considered and decided in an appeal under section 17 of the Act which is provided for challenging possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act. 7. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid notices before the Debts Recovery Tribunal raising all the points which he has raised before this court. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the said authority within 15 days from today along with a copy of this order, the said authority shall decide the aforesaid points and other issues raised by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law. If the petitioner seeks any interim relief, he may file an interlocutory application before the said appellate authority, who shall consider the same and shall immediately pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)