ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court assails Annexure P/9 dated 25.09.2023, a notice issued by respondent No.1-Bank to petitioner-borrower u/S.13(2) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity "SARFAESI Act"). Further challenge is laid to Annexure P/14 dated 22.11.2023 rejecting objections submitted by petitioner to aforesaid notice.

2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal.

3. With the consent of counsel for rival parties, this petition is being finally disposed of.

4. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Ghildiyal in support of aforesaid challenge primarily raised following two grounds:-

(i) Without declaring relevant loan account to be Non-Performing Assets (NPA) in terms of Section 13(1) SARFAESI Act, respondent- Bank has no authority in law to issue a notice u/S.13(2) of SARFAESI Act;

(ii) despite loan account having been regularized vide Annexure P/6 dated 13.02.2023 and Annexure P/7 dated 24.02.2023 issued by Branch Manager, Chhindwara Main Branch, S.B.I., respondent-Bank has no authority in law to proceed with impugned notice issued u/S.13(2) of SARFAESI Act.

5. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank, Shri Arvind Pandey on the other hand has filed detailed return inter alia revealing that loan account in question was declared NPA as early as on 24.07.2022. The reply further reveals that letters dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P/6) and 24.02.2023 (Annexure P/7), which are heavily relied upon by petitioner, were issued by Branch Manager under misconception, which fact came to light during conduction of audit. It is (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE (VINAY SARAF) JUDGE further urged in the reply that petitioner was given a final opportunity to regularize loan account vide Annexure P/12 dated 21.10.2023 enabling the petitioner to convert the loan account from NPA to Standard Account. if petitioner deposits Rs.9,91,953/- by 26.10.2023. However, petitioner failed to avail this opportunity by failing to deposit said amount within time stipulated period.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that changing stands taken by respondent-Bank of declaring loan account as NPA and thereafter offering for regularizing the loan account itself demonstrates that respondent-Bank is ensured about its case.

7. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that interference ought to be eschewed in matters of this nature where large amount of public money is involved the recovery of which is governed by special statute (SARFAESI Act), which inter alia provides for various remedies to aggrieved persons. As such this Court ought not to exercise its power of judicial review.

7.1 More so, to resolve the dispute, this Court will have to enter into disputed questions of fact which ought not to be done while exercising writ jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, this Court declining interference dismisses this petition by leaving the petitioner to avail remedies available under SARFAESI Act in accordance with law.

9. With aforesaid liberty, this petition stands dismissed sans cost. mohsin mohsin