@ 091% SINGLE BENCH IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILA5PUR WRIT PETITION (c) No. 1‘S&L{ OF 2011 KT PETITIONER Si’rar‘am Agarwal, son of Shri Radheshyam J'i Agarwal, aged abouT 54 years, residenf of Gandhi Chowk, Village Neom- Tilda, DisTricT Raipur‘ (6.6.) Vs I,“ RESPONDENT I.C.I.C.I. Bank, a banking company duly'incorporaTed under § The relevan‘r provisions of The Iaw and a bank ‘wiThin iTs meaning under‘ The Banking " .t.’ ReguIaTion AcT carrying 9n The business of banking all over The India, having iTs office RNAG, Khajrani, Maiav Parisar, A.V. Road, Indore (M.P.) and a branch office aT Civil Lines, Raipur. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA (¢’ 5. . k @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR ‘ WRIT PETlTlON (C) No 1584 OF 2011 (Wnt Petition under Amcle 226/227 of the Constltutuon of India) Single Bench Hon ble Shn Satlsh K Agmhotri J Present :4 Shn K.Sharma. Advocate for the pehhoner. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the resoundent. _ ORDE ORAL (Passed on’this 8 day of July. 201 1 ) The petitionerseeks to chaHenge initiation of the proceeding under ’Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiei Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act, 2002’) on the ground that a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued on 7.1.2011 (Annexure P—1). The petitioner fried his reply on 27.1 .2011 (Annexure P-2) through the counsel. The respondent without communicating the order on me representatlon [objection within one week of receipt of such communication under Section 13(3A) of the Act, 2002. passed the order and as such, the entire proceedings stand vitiated and the petitioner is debarred from taking steps under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002. A corrigendum letter was issued subsequently on 4.2.2011, which was not responded to by the petitioner. 2. ‘Learned counsel further submits that the issue with regard to consideration and communication of the order under Section 13(3A) came into consideration before this Court in Anil Kumar Agarwel v. I.Cll.C.I. & Another‘ ,wherein it was held as under : 18 Section 13(3A) of the Act 2002 pmvrdes for a specmc procedure which cannot be permitted to be contravened It Is a tnte [aw drat If a statute requires to do a process in a parb'cular way, the same must be done in that way only. ‘ AIR 2m 1 CHHATHSGARH 1 ‘ PETITIONER , Sitaram Agarwal Versus RESPONDENTS 1C ICI Bank 2 Thereagainst, an appea! preferred before the Division Bench was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.12011. He further submits that the Irepiy/objection to show cause notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002, was sent on 27.1.2011 (Annexure P—2), which was considered and communication was sent by iener dated 5.2.2011. Thus, me c Bank has not communicated reasons for non-acceptance of the representation/ objection to the petitioner, within one week of receipt . of such»representation/objection. Thus, the entire proceeding may be declared as bad and contrary to the provisions of Section 13(3A) of i the Act, 2002. 0n the other hand, Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Iearned counsei appearing for the respondent/Bank submits that one week is to be counted from the date of receipt of the representation/objection not from the date when it was sent. in the case on hand, the representation was not received on 27.1 .2001, but the same was sent by Registered/UPC/Speed Post on 27.1 .2011 (Annexure P-2) and the same was received thereafter. If the period of one week is counted form the date of receipt of the representation/objection, the representation was decided on 5.2.2001 within a period of one week i.e. Annexure P-4, which was weii within time. Even otherwise, the case of Anii Kumar Agarwal is distinguishabie. In case of Anil Kumar Agarwal, no decision was ‘ taken and, as such, the Bank was granted liberty to issue a fresh notice and decide. In that case, the representation lobjection made by the borrower was, retumed back by the Bank with remark that “Iene se inkar". In Kanaiyalal galchand Sachdev and others v. State of Maharashtra and othersz the Supreme Court observed that if there is any deficiency or defect in compliance of various provisions of Secdon 13 ‘ and order is passed under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, the High ..._.,Err(_201l) 2 scc 7B2 5:3 3 Court should not antenain the petition as statutory remedy of appeal as provided under provisions of 17 of the Act, 2002, is available. 6. in the case on hand, pursuant to the notice dated 7.1 .2011 under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002, a representation/objection was sent on 27.1 .2011 by post, which was received cerwinly after some time, but the same is not clear, as no document has been produced. After receipt of the representation/objection, the Bank authorities had rejected the objection by order dated 5.2.2011 and thereafter, the same was communicated to the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be held . that the reasons for non-acceptance of thelrepresentation/objection not to the within of week were communicated petitioner a period one week of receipt of such representation/objection. 7. The date of dispatch of representation ls not important, but the date of receipt of representation for the purpose of counting one week. The order under Section13(3A) after consideration of representation lobjection made by the petitioner has been passed on 5.2.2011. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The statutory appellate authority under provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 2002, is available for redressal of grievances. 8. In view of foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- Agniho‘“ Satish K. Judge ashok