IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6482 of 2010 1.M/S VAISHALI TRADING PVT.LTD. A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mahabir Villa, Mahabir Lane, Budha Colony, East Boring Canal Road, Patna 800001 and factory at Fatua Industrial Area, Plot No. C-3 and C-4, At & P.O.Fatua, District Patna through its Director Shri Sunil Kumar Jaisawal son of Late Vishwanath Choudhary, M/s vaishali Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mahabir Villa, Mahabir Lane, Budha Colony, P.S.Budha Colony, East Boring Canal Road, Patna- 800001 2.Sunil Kumar Jaisawal son of Late Vishwanath Choudhary, M/s Vaishali Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mahabir Villa, Mahabir Lane Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, East Boring Canal Road, Patna- 800001 3.Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Hari Narayan Prasad, resident of Dighi Basant Vihar Colony, Near Deo Chand College, Hazipur, P.S. Hazipur, District Vaishali--------------------petitioners Versus 1.PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, through its Chief General Manager, 7, Bhikhaiji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110 066 2.Punjab National Bank through its Authorised Officer, Circle Office, Chankya Place, R.Block, Patna-800 001 3.The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, B.O.,SME,JJ Complex, East Boring Canal Road, Patna------------respondents ----------- For the petitioners: Mr.Satya Bir Bharti,Advocate For the Bank : Mr.Suresh Pd.Singh No.1,Advocate ---- 4. 20.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent Bank. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent Bank initiated under the SARFAESI Act specially Sections 13(2) and 13(4). Some facts are not in dispute. The petitioners had borrowed money from the respondent Bank to set up a factory at Fathua Industrial Estate. Loans had been sanctioned but the factory did not take off or go into production as expected or anticipated by the petitioners due to non- issuance of various licence or permits which was 2 required in this regard. The delay in turn reflected on the financial health of the Company. The borrowing was declared NPA and notices under Section 13(2) came to be issued to the petitioners. In absence of substantive objection the possession notice under Section 13(4) has now been issued and possession taken. Submission of learned counsel representing the petitioners is that the steps taken by the respondent Bank to auction sale property is in breach of the provisions of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Special reference is made to Rule 6 and 8 in this regard. First submission on behalf of the petitioners is that if the laid down procedure has not been followed in terms of the Rules the whole process will have to be declared illegal. The petitioners were entitled to 30 days notice in terms of Rule 6(6) read with Rule 9. In the present case 30 days was given but even before the same expired. A notice for sale was also issued by the Bank fixing a date for sale prior to expiry of 30 days, which, according to the petitioners, is in breach of the provisions of the Rules indicated above. The other submission is that sale notice has been issued only in one newspaper instead of two 3 including one of them being a vernacular newspaper. That too is a ground for interference with the action of the respondent Bank. All these submissions of the petitioners merited consideration provided there was willingness on the part of the petitioners to repay the loan. It is not disputed that despite 30 days notice petitioners did not respond. The purpose of notice to the borrowers is for them to take steps to redeem the property within the time framed, fixed by the Legislature. It is not a provision for academic purpose that the 30 days notice has to be given and then only steps for sale has to be taken even when the borrower has absolutely no desire or capacity to pay back. If the respondent Bank had gone ahead with an advertisement for sale and fixed a date before the 30 days there could have been occasion for this Court to hold that the action is illegal provided the petitioners had approached the Bank, raised objection and expressed their desire that they are going to respond to the 30 days notice within the 30 days period. But nothing of the kind has been done in the present case. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is 4 mere academic and leads us nowhere as even today there is no statement or assurance on repayment. So far as publication in the single newspaper in breach of proviso to Rule 8 is concerned, the stage for such a challenge may be available to the petitioners after the sale is effected and if the Bank alienates the property for a song and was sought to be sold on a very limited response. There is no merit in the case of the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.) Spal/