aw7i l IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (c) No ég§3 OF 2009 ) PETITIONERS 1. Anil Agarwal, Son of Shri Rudhe Shyam QAgar'wal, aged 42, ProprieTo‘r: M/s Shyam Riqe & Parboling UniT, Gandhi Chowk, Neora Tilda, Disfrict Raipur (C.GI) 2. Smf. Vijaylaxmi Agarwal, wife of Shri Anil Agarwal, aged abouf 36 years, Village Neara, Tiida, DisTricT Raipur‘ 3. Siif‘aram Agarwal, son of 5‘ r‘i Radhe Shyam Ji A%ar'wai aged abou‘r 52 years r‘eSIdenf of Village Neora, Tilda, Dis‘rric‘r Raipur‘ (06.) . SmT. Prabha Si'rar'am Agarwal, wife of Shri Si‘rar‘a Agarwal, aged about 48 years, residen‘r of House No.463, Village Neora, Tilda, DistricT Raipur (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENT Induslnd Bank, a banking company duly incorporated under the relevant provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No.6833 of 2009 PETITIONERS : Anil Agarwal & Others VERSUS lnduslnd Bank RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate for the respondent. \\ ORDER ORAL (Passed on 12 day of November, 2010) Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that even if the representation of the petitioner has not been considered and communicated within a period of one week on receipt of objection, the petitioner has an alternative'remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short “the DRT") under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act, 2002"). This Court may not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this petition. This very issue came into consideration before this Court in Anil Kumar Agarwal v. I.C./.C.l. Bank & Another’. This Court having considered all the issues and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions i.e. Mardia Chemical Ltd. and others v. Union of India and othersz and Transcore v. Union ’of India and Another? observed as under : 1 W.P. (C) No.5040 of 2009 (decided on 07-09-2010) 2 (2004) 2 SCC 311 3 (2008) 1 SCC 125 - “16. However; in the instant case the repiy dated 5/5/2009 was submitted by the petitioner, pursuant to the notice dated 21/3/2009 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act, 2002, receipt of the same was refused by the Bank. Thus, there was no occasion to consider the repiy of the petitioner. Indisputably the reply to the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, 2002 was flied by the petitioner within a period of 60 days, which was not received by the respondent Bank. 17. Thus, provisions of sub—section (3A) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002, is a mandatory statutory provision, which was not complied with before taking recourse to provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 2002. It is indisputabie that no order under the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 has been passed till date. 18. Section 13 (3A) of the Act, 2002 proVides for n a specific procedure, which cannot be permitted to be contravened. it is a triteylaw that if a statute requires to do a process in a particular way, the same must be done in that way only. This Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the Bank to decide the objection within a period of 10 days. ln the case on hand, the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued to the petitioner on 04-08-2009. The objection/reply was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 on 04—09-2009. Thereafter, it appears that the objection was not considered and the result thereof was not communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week, as per the statutory requirement under the provisions of Section 13 (3A) of the Act, 2002. Thus, the facts involved in the case on hand, are identical to that of Anil Kumar Agarwa/1 and it is squarely covered by the said decision. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the decision of this Court rendered in Anil KumarAgarwa/1' No order asto costs. ‘ sa/ r ‘1 SatishK.Agmhstrt \ a.;Judge