IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21433 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 01, 2010. Murlidhar Shukla .....Petitioner versus Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court on a mere apprehension that the respondent-bank is likely to proceed against him under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act') without complying with the mandatory provisions of 13 (3A) of the Act which obligates the bank to dispose of the petitioner's objections by passing a reasoned order within the stipulated period. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears to me that the writ petition is pre-mature at this stage. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Limited and others C.W.P.No .21433 of 2010 2 versus Union of India and others, 2004 (4) SCC 311, read with Sub Section (3-A) added subsequently in Section 13 of the Act, are well known. There is nothing to presume that the respondent-bank shall not follow the mandatory provisions/law of the land before it proceeds against the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. December 01, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE