Review 1/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Review Petition No.1/2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.15479/2009 Arun Kumar Gupta Versus District Collector, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order ::: 12/03/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Kailash Chand Tailor, for petitioner Matter has come up on application seeking review of order dt.11/12/2009 rejecting CWP-15479/2009 - against which Special Appeal (Writ)-1265/2009 was preferred by petitioner but that was also withdrawn with a liberty to file review petition vide order dt.18/12/2009. Hence instant review petition. As alleged in review petition, petitioner was principal debtor for having taken loan of Rs.3.25 lacs, which was not re- paid in time, hence loan account was terminated declaring it to be NPA on 27/03/03; however, notice was issued by the Bank U/s 13 (2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (“Act, 2002”) which could not have been served upon petitioner, hence was published in news paper (Rajasthan Patrika) dt.12/08/2008 whereby 60 days time was granted to submit explanation/objection, if any U/s 13(3A), which indisputably was not submitted and accordingly, financial institution proceeded U/s 13(4) read with S.14 Review 1/10 //2// by filing application before Collector for taking possession of the property, alleged to have been mortgaged by financial institution; at this stage, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-15479/2009. Counsel submits that while rejecting the writ petition, no reasons have been assigned; apart from it, the notice having published in news paper had never come to their notice; as such written objection could not have been submitted and at the same time, further submits that property alleged to have been mortgaged is under dispute and FIR has also been registered; in such circumstances, financial institution cannot be said to be justified in taking possession of disputed property against which criminal case is pending. It is true that while disposing of CWP-15479/2009, reasons have not been assigned but this Court while having taken note of submissions did not find any substance in what has been urged by Counsel. It is clear from public notice published on 12/08/2008 that notice earlier sent to the defaulter debtor (petitioner) U/s 13(2) of the Act, 2002 since could not be served, there was no option left for financial institution to publish it in the news paper, that can certainly be considered to be a sufficient service. Indisputably the petitioner failed to submit written objection Review 1/10 //3// U/s 13(3A) of the Act, 2002; hence respondents were justified in initiating proceedings as provided U/s 13(4) and if the petitioner feels aggrieved, remedy of appeal U/s 17 of the Act, 2002 is available to a principal debtor. However, in the facts of the instant case, this court does not find justification to review the order dt.11/12/2009. Consequently, review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/ 1Review2010-15479CW09-Mar12-Ds.doc