Chanmati Devi @ Meera Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11242 of 2016 ======================================================
1. Chanmati Devi @ Meera Devi wife of Bindhyachal Yadav resident of Village- Rampur Jaga P.O.- Sonehula P.S.- Gopalpur Dist- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7 Bhikhaiji Cama Place, Africa Avenue, New Delhi- 110066.
3. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
4. The Chief Manager- HRD Punjab Nation Bank, Circle Office, Muzaffarpur, Dist- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Chief Manager-cum-Authorized Officer Punjab National Bank, Branch Office- Gopalganj P.S + District- Gopalganj.
6. The Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Office Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, A.C. to G.A. 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 11-05-2018 Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned Senior counsel for the Bank and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner has come against the notice issued by the Bank under the provision of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act'). Mr. Parbat learned Senior counsel while raising preliminary objection submits that there are remedy available under 'the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11242 of 2016 (2) dt.11-05-2018 2/2 SARFAESI Act' but without exhausting the same that he has approached this Court. He thus questions the very maintainability of the writ petition.
After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of the writ petition to enable the petitioner to take recourse to the lawful remedy available to him. Permission is granted.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash U