Honble Amitava Lala, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to get a writ or direction issued in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 11th December, 2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 and notice dated 14th October, 2008 issued under Section 13 (2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Securitisation Act’).

2. It appears to this Court that by an order dated 26th November, 2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61141 of 2008, M/s Ace Media Advertisers Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Branch Manager and others, this Bench was pleased to pass following order :

“The contention of the petitioners is that there is an order of Debt Recovery Tribunal in favour of the respondents-bank and against the said order appeal is pending and, therefore, notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2002”) cannot be issued. It has been contended before this Court that two simultaneous remedies cannot be availed by the concerned bank, therefore, notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act is bad. We are of the view that the petitioners should file a reply/objection under Section 13 (3-A) of the Act to the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act before the authority concerned raising its grievances and taking all defence taken before this Court.

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case if petitioners file any objection to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act within a period of seven days, the same will be considered by the authority concerned expeditiously within a period of an other seven days after giving opportunity of hearing by a speaking order in accordance to law. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the matter on merit.

No order is passed as to costs.”

3. Such objection was considered under the order impugned dated 11th December, 2008 by the authorised officer of the respondent-bank and it was held that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act is legal and accordingly sustainable. It has right to proceed simultaneously under the Securitisation Act and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Act’). As per Reserve Bank of India (for short ‘RBI’) guidelines, the account is NPA (non- performing asset) and the petitioners are chronic defaulters. The denial in the objection is bogus, concocted and has no force in the eye of law. The Bank calculated interest as per the RBI guidelines. The Bank had already served notice upon the petitioners under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act and such service of notice has been admitted in the objection. The Bank has full right to recover the outstanding dues with interest till the date of payment through Securitisation Act or under decree passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘DRT’) as such effective for clearance of dues amount, as deemed fit. Question of availability of other mechanism of recovery cannot be bar for providing remedy under Securitisation Act.

4. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, when a decree has been passed by the DRT in accordance with the DRT Act, the petitioners cannot be subjected to the remedy available under the Securitisation Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the contentions of the petitioners and brought to our notice various provisions of both the Acts. According to him, as per Section 2 (ha), being definition clause of Securitisation Act, ‘debt’ shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of Section 2 of DRT Act. This has been incorporated in the law with effect from 11th November, 2004. Therefore, if we go through the reference under the meaning of ‘debt’ in the above Act, we have to see cl