Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the respondent in a writ application and is directed against order dated September 8, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 20166 (W) of 2006 thereby rejecting the writ application on the sole ground that a notice issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by a Solicitor on the instruction of the creditor was invalid.
(2.) Being dissatisfied, the respondent has come up with the present mandamus appeal.
(3.) Mr. Mitra, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vigorously contended before us that the learned Single Judge committed a gross error of law in holding that the notice in terms of section 13(2) of the Act is required to be given by the secured creditor or its authorised officer himself, but in no case, by their learned Advocate on the basis of the instruction. According to Mr. Mitra there is no prohibition either under the Act or under the rules framed thereunder in giving a notice in terms of section 13(2) of the Act by an Advocate or a Solicitor on behalf of his client.;