Narendra Nath Tiwari - (1.)THE petitioner has sought direction on the Respondent Bank to dispose of the representation/objection dated 4th February, 2011 filed on behalf of the petitioner in response to the Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act'). The petitioner has further sought direction on the Respondent -Bank Not to take any step under Section 13(4) of the Act before giving any reply to the Notice sent to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Act. According to the petitioner, it had applied for loan from State Bank of India, Madhupur Branch. After completion of all the required formalities, Cash Credit Loan of Rs. 3.50 lacs was given to the petitioner. Against the said Cash Credit Loan, a piece of land owned by the wife of the petitioner's proprietor was mortgaged to the Bank as security. The bank account was opened, being Account No. 11159162595. The said bank account was declared as N.P.A. without giving Notice to the petitioner and outstanding dues with interest was calculated at Rs. 3,74,173.03. The petitioner protested against the said calculation, contending that there was gross mistake in calculation of the dues. Without paying any heed to the said objection of the petitioner and without correcting the said calculation, the Respondent -Bank all of a sudden issued Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to discharge full liability calculated at Rs. 4,33,502/ - as on 17th December, 2010.
(2.)THE petitioner filed its objection/representation dated 4th February, 2011 under the provisions of Section 13(3 -A) of the Act, stating, inter alia, that there was mistake in calculation and the amount should be properly calculated, but till date the Respondent -Bank has Not sent any reply. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has apprehension that the Respondent -Bank may proceed under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act and may take possession of the mortgaged property without considering and disposing of the objection/ representation of the petitioner filed under Section 13(3 -A) of the Act.
The writ petition has been contested by the Respondent -Bank, stating, inter alia, that almost same issue has been raised before the Permnent Lok Adalat at Deoghar and the case is still pending. Before the Lok Adalat, the petitioner had taken same plea, which was replied by the Respondent -Bank. Separate reply to the objection of the petitioner under Section 13(3 -A) of the Act is Not required in view of the reply filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 21st February, 2011. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

(3.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties.