IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9849 of 2011 1. MANOJ KUMAR 2. DILIP KUMAR 3. MUKESH KUMAR SONS OF LATE JAGDISH PRASAD, ALL RESIDENTS OF GOLA ROAD, ASHOKA AUTO SERVICE, P.S. AND DIST. MUZAFFARPUR………………..……PETITIONERS. Versus 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE, SITUATED AT MUMBAI, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN., 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, SPEAKER CHAUK, MUZAFFARPUR, DIST. MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, PAWAPURI, BIHAR N.H.28 BHAGWANPUR, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, SAHU POKHAR, BRANCH, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE AUTHORIISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, SPEAKER CHAUK, MUZAFFARPUR……………………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : M/s N.K. P. Sinha and Satish Kumar, Advocates. For the Bank : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 21.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents Central Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging auction notice dated 05.05.2011 published in the daily news paper ‘Hindustan’ issued by the authorities of the Bank by which according to the petitioners the property was grossly under valued and was sought to be auctioned. 3. The claim of the petitioners is that no notice 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) had been ever served - 2 - upon the petitioners although the petitioners were always ready to deposit the outstanding dues before the bank for which the petitioners had filed several applications but the bank did not give any opportunity for hearing on the aforesaid notice. He further submits that the excess amount as per the decision of the Lok Adalat had already been deposited by the petitioners and hence no dues remains. 4. From the impugned auction notice dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure-2) it is quite apparent that the proceeding under the Act had been initiated and demand notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners but the petitioners claim that the said notice was never served upon them. From the aforesaid auction notice, it is also apparent that the possession notice under section 13 (4) of the Act was also issued by the bank but the petitioners are silent about the receipt thereof and in any view of the matter such notices are duly published in newspapers and hence there can be no legal assumption of any absence of such notice. 5. It is quite apparent that after the demand notice under section 13 (2) of the Act, no objection was filed by the petitioners under section 13 (3)(A) of the Act and even after possession notice under section 13 (4) of the Act no appeal was filed by the petitioners under section 17 of the Act and now the petitioners had come only against the auction notice dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure-2). 6. The questions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are questions of facts which can only be decided by the authorities concerned for which specific provisions are made in the - 3 - Act and the petitioners cannot be allowed to ignore the said provisions and approach this court on such flimsy grounds. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the appropriate authority under section 17 of the Act and if such an appeal is filed by the petitioners within 15 days from today along with all the requisites and a copy of this order along with an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and decide it without being influenced by this order, expeditiously. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)