WPMS NO.1301 of 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. L. K. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D. S. Patni, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3. Mere threat is not a ground for the petitioner to approach the writ court in an equitable jurisdiction where the petitioner has taken a huge amount as loan and is not able to pay back. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent bank is required to comply with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with Rule 8 of the Rules made thereunder is patently erroneous in as much as it is expected from the respondent bank that it will comply with the aforesaid provisions of law. This court does not find any ground to interfere in the order passed under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 30.06.2011 LSR