IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10612 of 2010 1. SHAMBHU KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE SHIVRAJ SINGH, R/O MOHALLA GANDHI NAGAR, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, P.S. S.K.PURI, DISTRICT- PATNA ,DIRECTOR M/S RAVI AND PARMAR AGRO MILLS PVT. LTD. ---------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, MADAM CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (O/C) STATE BANK OF INDIA, JUDGES COURT ROAD, DISTRICT- PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER CUM AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, PATLIPUTRA, P.S. PATLIPUTRA,DISTRICT- PATNA. ----------------Respondents ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Naresh Kumar Malhotra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha-2. For the respondent Bank:- Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Adv. ------------- 3. 31.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents Bank. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged notice issued under the signature of the Chief Manager-cum-Authorized Officer, State Bank of India (respondent no. 3) under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization & Reconstructions of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, vide his letter no. ADV/2010- 11/176 dated 14.06.2010 (annexure-3) by which the petitioner was directed to approach the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India (respondent no. 2) on 18.06.2010 for consideration of the proposal of the petitioner and for a direction to respondent authorities to 2 consider the proposal of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid letter dated 14.06.2010. 3. It is quite apparent that there was some amount of unpaid loan for payment of which a proposal was submitted by the petitioner before the Chief Manager-cum- Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, (respondent no.3) who sent the said notice on 14.06.2010 inviting the petitioner for discussion on 18.6.2010. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the said letter was posted on 1.7.2010 which was received by the petitioner on 2.7.2010 but by that time the date 18.6.2010 fixed by the said authority had lapsed and hence he could not appear. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the proposal of the petitioner was rejected. 5. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly show that the said proposal of the petitioner was rejected due to default for which the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault. 6. Thus this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh proposal before respondent no. 3 within 15 days from today along with a copy of this order. If the said proposal is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid time, respondent no. 3 shall fix a date for hearing the petitioner and inform him within time and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with 3 law within one month. 7. During the pendency of the aforesaid proposal neither the petitioner shall alienate or encumber the property in question nor the respondents shall take any coercive action against the petitioner. Anand Kr. (S.N. Hussain, J.)