1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6536 OF 2009 Ajit S/o.Pandurang Chaudhary PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.Dhananjay B.Thoke, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, learned AGP for respondent/State Mr.A.D.Shinde, learned counsel for respondent no.4 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 01/10/2009 PER COURT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside notice dated 05/12/2005 issued by respondent no.4 u/s. 32 of The Securitisation Act, 2002. 2. It appears that the petitioner had availed loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- and on account of failure of the petitioner to repay the outstanding loan, a notice u/s. 13(2) of The Securitisation Act came to be issued on 05/12/2005. Pursuant thereto, the other secured assets came to be sold pursuant to the action taken under the Act. 2 The petitioner thereafter had applied for one time settlement and accordingly came to be granted installments in respect of payment of the outstanding debt. The petitioner thereafter has committed default in the payment of outstanding debt. The petitioner has filed the present petition apprehending that the respondent bank would take possession of the dwelling house of the petitioner which is a secured asset. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is outstanding against the petitioner. 3. Since no action has been initiated by the respondents for taking possession of the dwelling house or for taking any steps pursuant to the notice dated 05/12/2005 in respect of the dwelling house, the present petition is wholly pre-mature. The petitioner can avail the alternate remedies available to the petitioner in Law in the event any action is proposed by the respondents. The petitioner has raised a ground so far as limitation of the notice is concerned. The notice was issued to the petitioner some time in the year 2005. The petition of this nature is filed now in the year 2009. Since no action of attaching the dwelling house is initiated, the aforesaid ground does not aid the petitioner. For the reasons which we have stated above, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner. In that light of the matter, petition dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT 2009/wp6536-09