IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18440 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 11, 2010. Janak Raj and another .....Petitioners versus State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Chander Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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) Notice of motion. Mr.Harish Chander Gupta, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-Bank. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondent at this stage. The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondent- bank to consider the offer given by them in response to the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the 2002 Act'). C.W.P.No .18440 of 2010 2 According to the petitioners, the due loan amount is Rs.08,54,194/-, out of which they are willing to deposit Rs.3 lacs within a period of two weeks and the balance amount will be paid in equal instalments within a period of one year thereafter. The petitioners' offer appears to be fair and genuine. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent-bank to consider and accept the petitioner's offer, if not contrary to its policy. However, in case of any default on behalf of the petitioners, the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with the 2002 Act. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 11, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE