IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6961 of 2011 M/s. Mahavir Polisher Mini Rice Mills through Mundrika Choudhary son of Late Shri Chaudhary, resident of Village-Satarbighawan, P.O.- Baraon, P.S. Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Bank of India through its General Manager. 2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khairadih Branch, P.S. Nokha, District-Rohtas. …….Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, Advocate. --------- 04/ 29.06.2011 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure-4) by which the respondent-Bank had directed the petitioner to deposit the entire money within thirty days failing which mortgaged property shall be sold for recovery of the loan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no doubt, the petitioner is a loanee, but no information with regard to any such proceeding under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) had been ever given to the petitioner. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State Bank of India files a counter affidavit and states that proceeding under the Act has been initiated much earlier and a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner on 13.12.2009 (Annexure-A), whereafter the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also sent to the petitioner on - 2 - 11.05.2010 (Annexure-B). He further states that when the petitioner did not respond to the said notices, possession was taken by the respondent-Bank and the impugned notice for auction sale dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure-3) was issued. 3. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the said proceeding specially notices issued under the Act. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the said authority within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the absence of knowledge of the petitioner and pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. If any interim relief is required by the petitioner, he may file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority who will decide the same in accordance with law. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)