IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17845 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 01, 2010. Bawa Singh .....Petitioner versus UCO Bank through its Chairman and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.D.K.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned notice dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (for short `2002 Act') being arbitrary and discriminating in nature. It is alleged that the petitioner's request for re-scheduling the payment of loan amount has not been considered at all. It is also alleged that the possession of the `unsecured assets' has already been taken by the respondent-bank. In the light of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others), decided on 26.7.2010, it appears that the C.W.P.No .17845 of 2010 2 directions, as prayed for, cannot be issued except to direct the respondent- bank to consider the petitioner's request contained in his representation dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure P-8); legal notice dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure P-9) and second representation dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-11), in accordance with law and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order before it proceeds to auction the `secured assets'. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 01, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE