IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Application No.3906 of 2010 In Writ Petition No. 798 of 2010 (M/S) Arvind Singh Negi S/o Shri Shiv Singh Negi R/o G-175 Nehru Colony Dehradun. …………Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank Through its Chief Manager, Branch Karanpur, Dehradun. …….Respondents. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate for the respondent Dated:-21-05-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to correct the array of parties. Permission granted. The necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure-7) issued by respondent under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) and it was further prayed that the respondents should not take any coercive steps against the petitioner and not to dispossess the petitioner from his property till the pendency of the present writ petition. 2 According to the petitioner, he never took a loan from the respondent Bank. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has informed to the court that the notice under Section- 13 (4) of the Act had already been issued on 14.11.2007 to the petitioner, the notice under Section- 13 (2) of the Act was issued on 29-08-2007. The impugned notice is for taking the physical possession. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil suit for stay of recovery was filed as it reveals by a perusal of annexure No.5 to the writ petition the same was dismissed in default on 22.01.2010. The petitioner may apply for restoration of the said order before the Civil Court. Since, the notices under section 13(4) of the Act had already been issued, the petitioner has an alternate remedy to file appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal also, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable before this court. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given is given to the petitioner either he may make a representation to the concerned Bank, if the representation is made, the respondent Bank shall take decision on the representation, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter or he may avail appropriate remedy before appropriate forum. Stay application stands disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 21-05-2010 Mk