RAJ NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.M.Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P.Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4. Learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.1.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 31.8.2012 by which letter, the petitioner was communicated that his representation is not acceptable. A notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued in the name of respondent No.5 in which in property particulars, the name of the petitioner was also mentioned as owner of plot No.871. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being writ petition No.44876 of 2012 stating that the petitioner had filed an objection under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, which has not yet been decided. When the case was taken up on 5.9.2012, learned counsel for the Bank informed the Court that the objection has already been decided on 31.8.2012. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri M.M.Sahai challenging the letter dated 31.8.2012 submitted that under section 13 (3-A), it was incumbent upon the Bank to decide the objection of the petitioner. He has also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Union of India and others etc. etc. (2004)3 UPLBEC 2191, para 77 and 80 and he submits that it was incumbent upon the Bank to apply its mind on the objection and then decide the objection. He submitted that the Bank has not considered the objection.