v'MM K ‘ ’W " ’wwg‘i 3;;‘E5J azi‘n § Cmglw IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION c NO.'2%é OF 2011 PETITIONER -/$ifar‘am Agarwal, son of Shri Radheshyam Ji Agarwal, aged abouf 54 years, resident of Gandhi Chowk, Village Neora- Tilda, Dish‘icf Raipur (6.6.) Small Industries Developmen? Bank of India, a body corporate esfablished by Small Industries Developmen? Bank of India Acf, 1989, having ifs head/regisfered office of SIDBI Tower, 15 Ashok Marg, Lucknow (UP) and inTer—alio a branch at 2"d Floor, Chawla Complex, Sai Nagar, Raipur. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench’: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Shri K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.C. Mishra, Advocate with Shri P.P.‘Sahu. Advocate for the respondent. " ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29‘“ day of June, 201 1)" 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the action in contemplation of taking possession of the properties belonging to the petitioner herein bearing khasra Nos.266/1, 265/3, 265/1, 285/1, 285/3, 285/4, 285/5, 285/6 & 285/7 total area of 0.709 hectares situated at Patwari Halka No.15, village Nevra, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur, for the recovery of alleged sum due against M/s Shyam Rice Parboiling Unit, Tilda-Neora, District Raipur, by taking resort of the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act, 2002”) without following the mandatory procedure prescribed in this regard. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the identical issue has already been considered and decided by this Court in Anil Kumar Agan/va/ v. /.C.I.C.I. @ WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1286 OF 2011 PETITIONER Sitaram Agarwa! Versus RESPONDENT Small industries Development Bank of India Bank & Anr.’ and learned counsel prays that this petition may be disposed of in terms of Anil KumarAgan/val (supra). Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank does not controvert the aforesaid submission and submits that the objection raised by the petitioner pursuant to notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act, 2002 shall be considered in accordance with law and proper orders shall be passed before taking any steps in respect of the property in dispute. ln view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly,“the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of Anil @D Gowri Kumar Agan/val (supra). Sd/— SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge ‘AIR 2011 Chhattisgarh 1