JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the notice, dated 10.10.2013, issued by the authorized officer of the respondent Bank, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, cannot be initiated, in respect of the secured assets in question, as they are agricultural lands. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the notice, dated 10.10.2013, issued by the authorized officer of the respondent Bank, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. He had further submitted that the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is without jurisdiction. Sufficient materials are available to show that the lands in question, which are the secured assets, have been agricultural in nature, right from the beginning. 4. The learned Senior counsel had further stated that the respondent Bank had classified the account of the petitioner as a Non-Performing Asset, erroneously, without following the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In the reply sent by the petitioner it has been clearly mentioned that the impugned notice, issued on behalf of the respondent Bank, is without jurisdiction and therefore, it is bad in the eye of law. 5. The learned Senior counsel had further submitted that in the interim reply sent by the petitioner it has been stated that the petitioner is not in a position to submit a detailed reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as the petitioner does not have the copies of the necessary documents which are available with the respondent Bank. Therefore, the petitioner had requested the respondent Bank to furnish the necessary documents, to the petitioner, so that a detailed reply could be submitted to the said notice. 6. Therefore, the petitioner had requested the respondent Bank to furnish the necessary documents, to the petitioner, so that a detailed reply could be submitted to the said notice. 6. It has been further stated that it is open to this court to call for the necessary records and to find out if the respondent Bank had followed the prescribed procedures for classifying the account of the petitioner as a Non-Performing Asset. It has also been stated that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, for declaring an account as a Non-Performing Asset, is mandatory and binding in nature. From the available facts of the case it is clear that the respondent Bank had not followed the procedures prescribed for declaring the account of the petitioner as a Non-Performing Asset. 7. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in Signal Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank, 2010(5) CTC 337 , in support of his contentions. In the said decision this court had held that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India are mandatory in nature and the respondent Bank ought to follow the same for declaring an account of a borrower as a Non-Performing Asset. 8. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that, after a notice has been issued, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the borrower has a right to object to the claims made on behalf of the secured creditor and it is the duty of the secured creditor to consider the objections raised by the borrower and to take an appropriate decision thereon before proceeding further. The decision of the secured creditor ought to be a reasonable decision. Sufficient reasons ought to be shown by the secured creditor while taking a decision. If all the relevant aspects are not taken into consideration, by the secured creditor, while taking a decision, it would be open to this court to call for the relevant records and to set aside the decision taken by the secured creditor. In fact, in the present case, the respondent Bank had not considered the relevant materials available on its file, while deciding to declare the account of the petitioner as a Non-Performing Asset. In fact, in the present case, the respondent Bank had not considered the relevant materials available on its file, while deciding to declare the account of the petitioner as a Non-Performing Asset. Further, the respondent Bank had failed to furnish the necessary documents, as requested by the petitioner, to enable it to submit a detailed reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this court to set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as prayed for by the petitioner. 9. Per contra, Mr.M.S.Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank had submitted that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature in nature. No further action has been initiated against the petitioner after the issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The learned counsel had further submitted that the Supreme Court had made it clear in its decision, in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2004 (2) CTC 759 (SC), that it would not be open to the borrower to challenge the notice issued by the secured creditor, under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, except in exceptional circumstances. However, in the present case no such special circumstances are existing for this court to call for and set aside the notice, dated 10.10.2013, issued by the authorized officer of the respondent Bank, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 10. The learned counsel had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. 1) Digivision Electronics Ltd. Vs. Indian Bank, 2005(3) CTC 513 2) MSG. Arts Crafts Vs. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, 2010(2) CTC 497 3) In Kalpesh P.C.Surana Vs. Indian Bank, 2010(3) CTC 287 4) United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 5) Sri Lakshmi Pulvarisers, Rep. Through its Managing Partner Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., (Judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 22.11.2013). Indian Bank, 2010(3) CTC 287 4) United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 5) Sri Lakshmi Pulvarisers, Rep. Through its Managing Partner Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., (Judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 22.11.2013). He had stated that this Court had made it clear that the borrower does not have a right to challenge a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is only a demand notice issued by the secured creditor. Thereafter, the borrower would have an opportunity to submit a reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It would be open to the borrower to agitate the matter only if the secured creditor proceeds further by issuing a notice under section 13(4) of the said Act or under any of the other provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 11. It has been further stated that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in Signal Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank, 2010(5) CTC 337 , cannot be held to be in favour of the petitioner as the said decision had not laid down any law. The Division Bench had only pointed out the relevant aspects relating to the notice, issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which have to be taken into account, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned, while deciding the issues arising out of the said notice. While dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench had made certain observations relating to the mandatory nature of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, and with regard to the factors which are to be taken into account when a decision is made by the secured creditor, while declaring the account of the borrower as a Non-Performing Asset. No finding has been given stating that a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, could be challenged in the ordinary course, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. 12. No finding has been given stating that a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, could be challenged in the ordinary course, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available and on considering the decisions cited supra, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient reasons for this court to interfere with the impugned notice issued by the authorized officer of the respondent bank, dated 10.10.2013, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 13. From the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank it is clear that it would not be open to the borrower to challenge the notice issued by the secured creditor, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The issuance of such a notice by the secured creditor cannot be held to be arbitrary or invalid, under ordinary circumstances. There is no doubt that the borrower could have a right to submit a reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. Thereafter, it is for the secured creditor to consider the reply submitted by the borrower and to take necessary steps, if any, in accordance with the procedures established by the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. However, it is clear that there is no vested right in the borrower to challenge the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If further proceedings are initiated by the secured creditor, pursuant to the said notice, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in the manner known to law. If further proceedings are initiated by the secured creditor, pursuant to the said notice, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in the manner known to law. No special circumstances are found to exist in the present case for this court to interfere with the impugned notice issued by the respondent Bank, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, at this stage. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any subsequent proceedings that may be initiated against it, by the respondent Bank, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, before the appropriate forum, as per the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is premature in nature and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.