IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6530 of 2011 RAJESH KUMAR MURARKA, S/O LATE SUBHASH PRASAD MURARKA, RESIDENT OF EAST KAPASIA, WARD NO. 5, P.S. NAGAR, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. …PETITIONER. Versus 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK, RECOVERIES SECTION, RECOVERY WING, HEAD OFFICE, BANGLORE. 2. BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK, BEGUSARAI BRANCH, K.N. MARKET MAIN ROAD, BEGUSARAI. …….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. D.K. Tiwari. Mr. Raj Dular Sah, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sheela Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Shivendra Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 03. 21.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been field by the petitioner challenging order dated 16.02.2011 (Annexure-1) by which the Senior Manager Uco Bank Begusaarai rejected the proposal of the petitioner under O.T.S. scheme issued by the Bank itself under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India with respect to settlement of the loans. The petitioner has also challenged the possession notice dated 29.03.2011 issued by the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank Begusarai under the provision of section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and other for ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has always been ready to pay all the dues under the O.T.S Scheme 2010 but the respondents authorities never disclosed the amount and illegally rejected his proposal and - 2 - issued possession notice. 4. from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record, it is quite apparent that admittedly the petitioner was the borrower against whom demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued and much thereafter when O.T.S. Scheme of 2010 came into operation the petitioner sent his proposal on 27.11.2010 (Annexure-5) in view of order passed by a Bench of this Court dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure-4). 5. It further transpires that in compliance of the said order of this Court, the respondents authorities considered the matter and passed the impugned order dated 16.02.2011 (Annexure-1) informing that petitioner’s offer was not acceptable to the Bank. The petitioner did not immediately challenge the said order and waited for notice under Section 13(4) of the Act which was issued on 29.03.2011 whereafter this writ petition was filed on 11.04.2011. 6. So far the question of disclosure of the amount is concerned, it is quite apparent that the due amount was specifically mentioned in the demand notice issued by the Bank under Section 13 (2) of the Act and hence there was no occasion for the authorities to again and again inform the petitioner about the dues. Furthermore, in the impugned order dated 16.02.2011 (Annexure-1) the authorities have clearly disclosed the said amount and requested the petitioner to pay the same as his offer was not found acceptable by the Bank. 7. Furthermore, after issuance of notice under - 3 - Section 13(4) of the Act the petitioner had sufficient and adequate remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act but the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity also. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Devendra (S.N. Hussain, J.)