IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12660 of 2011 Durga Bala W/O Gopal Prasad R/O Rasida Chak, Pahari, P.S. - Agam Kuan, District – Patna. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Chairman,United Bank of India, Kolkata. 2. Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Abhay Bahwan, Frazer Road, Patna. 3. The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Rajendra Path, Kamla Market, Patna. ….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ----------- 02/ 23.09.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reschedule the Housing Loan of the petitioner and re-fix a reasonable instalment as per the outstanding dues on the same interest on which the petitioner had taken housing loan on 2006. (ii) Respondent-United Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as Bank) may be restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. (iii) Alternatively it is further prayed that if the first prayer is not allowed, then respondent may be directed to allow the petitioner to exercise the option of one time settlement under the Banking Rules and Regulations, considering the illness of husband of the petitioner as well as their pitiable financial condition of the petitioner. (iv) This Hon’ble Court may adjudicate and hold that it is the duty of the respondent- bank to consider the proposal given by the petitioner for re-scheduling her account or even for one time settlement. - 2 - (v) This Hon’ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that if the petitioner is ready to pay the housing loan amount of the Bank it was the duty to bank to reschedule the loan amount and re-fix the monthly instalment considering the condition and conduct of the petitioner. (vi) To award any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. From the facts and circumstances of this case it is quite apparent that the petitioner is a loanee and her assets have been declared as non performing asset, whereafter 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 initiated and demand notice under Section 13(2) was issued whereafter possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also issued by the respondents on 10.01.2011 (Annexure-2). 4. It is quite apparent that against such notice an appeal is provided under Section 17 of the Act where the petitioner can raise all the points which he has raised before this court. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority under the provision of Section 17 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner files an appeal within 15 days from today before the said authority along with all the requisites and a copy of this order as well - 3 - as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the filing of this case and shall decide the appeal on merits expeditiously. If the petitioner wants to seek any interim order he may file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority which will be decided in accordance with law without any delay. Sunil (S.N.Hussain, J.)