IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1482 of 2011 1. NILOTPAL THAKUR S/O LATE D.N. THAKUR, R/O MAYA HOUSE, T.N. SINGH ROAD, P.S.-KOTWALI, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 2. SWARNLATA SINHA W/O DR. ARUN KUMAR SINHA. 3. DR. ARUN KUMAR SINHA, S/O LATE BINDESHWARI RAM. Both are Residents of Masakchak, U.N. Bagchi Road, P.S.-Adampur, District-Bhagalpur. ………….Petitioners Versus 1. REGIONAL OFFICER, CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE MUZAFFARPUR. 3. SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, BHAGALPUR. 4. RANJAN GHOSHRAVE, C/O CANARA BANK, CO- EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 5. SRI DEVENDRA YADAV. 6. SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA, C/O RANJAN GHOSHRAVE, C/O CANARA BANK, CO-EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. ………….Respondents ----------- 04 28.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel for the respondents who has filed his counter affidavit. 2. This writ petitioner has been filed by the petitioners challenging notices under Sections 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’ for the shake of brevity) dated 19.09.2006 (Annexure-7) and dated 20.02.2007 (Annexure-8) respectively and also for quashing auction notice published in the newspaper on 23.10.2008 with respect to the land of Arunotpal Thakur and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said actions of the authorities were absolutely uncalled for, as the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the required amount and interest as per provisions of Sub Sections 4 (d) and 5 of Section 13 of the Act. However, it may be noted that after the issuance of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, no step was taken by the petitioner under Section 13 (3-A) of the Act. 4. Annexure 16 is order dated 06.12.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12133 of 2007 which was filed by Nilotpal Thakur with respect to his lands measuring three Kathas and the said writ petition was disposed of holding that since the said writ petition was filed in the year 2007 itself, it was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner or his successor in interest to file appeal before the relevant authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It was also noted that if such an appeal was filed by the said writ petitioner Nilotpal Thakur, it shall be limited to his lands only. 5. Now the instant writ petitioner has been filed by Nilotpal Thakur on behalf of and as attorney of his brother Arunotpal Thakur with respect to the land of Arunotpal Thakur measuring six Kathas. Technically this writ petition should have been filed by Arunotpal Thakur through his attorney Nilotpal Thakur, alongwith his power of attorney. 6. In any view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstance of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to Arunotpal Thakur to file an appeal through his attorney Nilotpal Thakur alongwith his power of attorney before the relevant authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. If such an appeal is filed before the appropriate authority within 15 days from today alongwith a copy of this order and an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition before this Court and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. It may be noted that if such an appeal is filed it shall be limited to the lands of Arunotpal Thakur only. Safik (S. N. Hussain, J.)