IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.520 of 2011 In CWJC No. 20304 of 2010 With I.A. No. 2284 of 2011 With I.A. No. 2285 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.520 of 2011 ============================================== Shahzada Rafi Ahmad - Appellant (s) Versus The Bank of Baroda & Ors. - Respondent(s) =============================================== Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mohan =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 02. 25.03.2011 The delay of 40 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 20th December 2010 made by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 20304 of 2010. The appellant-writ petitioner is a borrower in default. The respondent-Bank of Baroda has, on 14th October 2010, issued notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred 2 to as the Act of 2002). Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court in above C.W.J.C. No. 20304 of 2010. The petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the premise that the appellant has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh Mohan has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that against the notice of demand issued under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 does not lie. Learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy. Mr. Rajesh Mohan has admitted that since the notice of demand dated 14th October 2010 for recovery of the outstanding sum of Rs. 21, 07,323.50, the appellant has not paid a single farthing. He has, however, submitted that the appellant is willing to liquidate all his assets and clear the debts of the respondent-Bank. Unless this Court grants indulgence the respondent-Bank may not respond to the proposal of the appellant. We do agree with learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh Mohan that Section 17 of the Act of 2002 provides for appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the measures 3 undertaken under Section 13(4) of that Act and not against a notice of demand issued under Section 13(2) of that Act. He has, however, failed to make out a case for indulgence in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. If at all the appellant is willing to repay the outstanding amount and needs some breathing time, the appellant shall approach the respondent-Bank of Baroda with appropriate proposal of repayment schedule. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)