Hon’ble Vipin Sinha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the initial notice dated 30.5.2016 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act, 2002’) and have also sought quashing of the order dated 31.3.2016 by means of which the petitioners’ account has been classified as NPA (Non Performing Asset) and a further relief has also been sought for quashing of the order dated 25.7.2016 by means of which objections filed by the petitioners under Section 13 (3A) of the Act, 2002 has been rejected.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, is that the accounts of the petitioners have been wrongly classified as NPA and that the classification has been done in violation of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

4. Further contention is that on the relevant date on which the account of the petitioners was classified as NPA as well as even on the date the F.I.R. was lodged, there was sufficient stock available as security towards the financial aid provided by the bank and thus, their account has been wrongly classified as NPA and moreover the second notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 is not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that admittedly no action till date has been initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 and thus, in case the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the classification of the account as NPA or with regard to the quantum of liability towards the bank, petitioners have an effective and efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal/objection under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 as and when any measures under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 are initiated against the petitioners.

6. A perusal of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 shows that the notice itself makes it crystal clear that:

“Due to non deposit of interest of FITL for the month of March 2016, non-submission of stock reports in time and not getting stocks checked despite various reminders and personal visits, bank has decided to recall the entire outstanding.”

7. It further shows that as on 31.3.2016, the petitioners had a liability of Rs. 21,66,18,571.01/- with further interest till the date of actual payment.

8. In response to the said notice dated 25.4.2016 as well as notice dated 30.5.2016, the petitioners had filed a reply/objection under Section 13(3A) of the Act, 2002 dated 12.7.2016, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, in which a number of objections were taken with regard to the classification of the account as NPA as well as the crystallized liability/debt.

9. Learned counsel for the bank has drawn the attention of the Court to the conclusion/reply of the said representation dated 12.7.2016, given under Section 13(3A) of the Act, 2002, which was given by the bank vide letter dated 25.7.2016 in response to the objection filed by the petitioners.

10. A perusal of the said reply shows that it is a very elaborate and speaking reply and in fact the very basis of classifying the petitioners’ account as NPA has been duly disclosed in the said reply.

11. A perusal of the said reply also shows that in spite of repeated opportunities being given to the petitioners for verification of stock, keeping in view the fact that the drawing power of borrower is based on the available hypotheticated stock, the petitioners did not appear before the bank officials to verify the stock. The relevant extract of the said reply is being quoted herein below:

“Further merely submission of stock statement is not sufficient, it also require to be checked by the bank’s officials but your client did not allow the bank officials to check the stock dur