The legal question involved in this writ petition is, whether Ext. P16 communication issued by the Bank is in conformity with the mandatory requirement under Section 13 (3A) of the SARFAESI Act, in dealing with Ext. P15 representation preferred by the petitioner in response to Ext. P14 notice under Section 13(2) of the Act.

2. The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies quarrying unit in stone crusher unit and a Act, with intent to set up a Kannur district, proceeded with steps for procuring all the requisite licences and sought to avail financial assistance from the respondent Bank. As a matter of fact, four different loans were sought for; among which, three loans were granted on 14-08-2009 and one loan was granted on 17-08-2010, on the strength of guarantee given by the parties concerned and of course on the basis of security interest created over different extents of property. On receipt of Ext. P14 notice under Section 13(2), the petitioner preferred Ext. P15 reply/representation, pointing out the various adverse circumstances relevant to be considered and seeking not to wilful defaulter and to refrain from further proceedings. declare the petitioner as a This however was not properly considered, while summarily rejecting the same as per Ext. P16 order dated 06-06-2010, which in turn is under challenge, stating that, by virtue of the mandate under Section 13(3A), reasons for rejection have necessarily to be communicated within one week, which requirement is conspicuously not satisfied while issuing Ext. P16.

3. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner, in the stone crusher unit had to obtain different licenses from different attempt to set up a corners, like clearance certificate to be given by the Pollution Control Board, the licence to be issued by the local authority/panchayath, fire & rescue licence, explosive licence etc. The petitioner obtained the necessary licenses for setting up the unit and the installation of the trial run conducted in the presence of Pollution machinery was effected; followed by Control Board. At this juncture, some of the local people intervened and forcefully obstructed the activities, which forced the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 33452 of 2010, which was disposed of as per Ext. P2 judgment dated 18-01-2011. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows :

10. This writ petition is in these circumstances allowed in part to the above extent. Police protection shall be afforded to the petitioner to establish and work the stone crusher unit under Ext.P3 subject to the condition that raw materials for the crusher shall be brought to stone crusher in accordance with law in due compliance with all relevant laws and on the undertaking that blasting with explosives and quarrying shall not be done at the or near the site. We do however make it clear that if requisite permission etc. are obtained for undertaking the work of blasting rocks with due permission from the authorities and after the orders of the civil Courts are vacated, the petitioner shall be at liberty to undertake such activity and this judgment will not stand against the same. We further make it clear that if while working the stone crusher there is any threat to environment it shall be open to the party respondents or concerned officials to complain about such violation and seek appropriate orders from Courts/authorities. Police protection shall be afforded only if the conditions are complied with strictly.

As obvious from Ext. P2, there was some civil litigation as well, pursued by somebody before the concerned Civil Court, wherein an interim order of injunction was in existence. After obtaining Ext. P2 judgment, the petitioner moved the Civil Court and the interim order was got vacated as per Ext. P4 order dated 28-02-2011.

4. In the meanwhile, some other public spirited citizens approached this Court by