JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by one Sukesh Pani, Director, M/s. Zuvan Agro Pvt. Ltd. praying therein to quash the notice dated 27.9.2016 issued by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Khurda under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 to take possession of the secured assets situated at village/mouza-Kanchilo, Khata No. 55/9, Plot No. 51, area 1802 Sq.ft. and allow the petitioner to settle her outstanding dues to the opposite party-Bank on one time settlement scheme as framed by the Reserve Bank of India. 2. The short fact in brief of the instant case is that the petitioner had constituted a Private Limited Company in the name and style of "M/s. Zuvan Agro Pvt. Ltd." and had availed a term loan in the month of May, 2013 and cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 54 lakhs respectively from the Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch, Bhubaneswar for meeting installation cost and working capital requirement of business which was secured by hypothecation of stocks and book debts and equitable mortgage of factory land, buildings, plant and machineries. The loan account has become non-performing assets on and from 30th June, 2015 as outstanding dues against the term loan stood at Rs. 46.79 lakhs and Rs. 57.78 lacs in respect of the term loan and cash credit respectively as on 30.6.2015. Accordingly, notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002, in short, "SARFAESI Act, 2002" dated 20th July, 2015 had been issued informing the borrower to repay a sum of Rs. 1,04,57,424/- plus interest within 60 days from the date of notice failing which the Bank shall be free to exercise the powers vested by Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. On receiving the notice, the petitioner met the Branch Manager and appraised him her business problems with a request for accommodation and was advised to make the outstanding payment within the time frame stipulated in the notice dated 20.7.2015. On receiving the notice, the petitioner met the Branch Manager and appraised him her business problems with a request for accommodation and was advised to make the outstanding payment within the time frame stipulated in the notice dated 20.7.2015. It has been contended that the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not by the competent authority as per the provisions made under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in short "Rules, 2002" since the notice had been issued by the Assistant General Manager, who is not competent, rather as per the Rules, 2002 the competency has been vested upon the Chief Manager under the Statute and as such, the entire notice is not fit to be sustainable being without jurisdiction. However, the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been issued by the Chief Manager describing him as the Authorised Officer. The petitioner although has made a request to the authorities to make one time settlement of the entire loan account, but when the same has not been heeded to, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The Bank has entered appearance through its counsel and filed affidavit refuting the ground of the petitioner regarding competency of the Assistant General Manager by submitting that under the provisions of Rule 2(a) of the Rules, 2002 the "authorized officer" has been defined, which means an officer not less than a chief manager of a public sector bank or equivalent, as specified by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the secured creditor or any other person or authority exercising powers of superintendence, direction and control of the business or affairs of the secured creditor, as the case may be, to exercise the right of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. He submits by placing reliance upon the decision of the Board of Directors that the Board of Director has accorded approval for designating all the officers of the rank of Chief Manager and above of the Bank as "Authorized officer" as would be evident from the extract of the Bank's Non-performing Asset Management Policy Book-let wherein at Col. He submits by placing reliance upon the decision of the Board of Directors that the Board of Director has accorded approval for designating all the officers of the rank of Chief Manager and above of the Bank as "Authorized officer" as would be evident from the extract of the Bank's Non-performing Asset Management Policy Book-let wherein at Col. No. 10.5.4 the designated Chief Managers and above has been authorized as the Authorised Officer by the Board, hence the contention raised by the petitioner with respect to jurisdiction of the Assistant General Manager is without any substance since Assistant General Manager is higher in hierarchy than the Chief Manager. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he is ready to settle the dispute by way of one time settlement, it has been stated that the writ petition has been filed by M/s. Zuvan Agro Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, Lalit Kumar Maity being W.P.(C) No. 2643 of 2016 wherein this Court vide order dated 12.4.2016 had dismissed the writ petition, which exclusively was filed for issuance of a direction to clear the outstanding loan of the petitioner-company due to the opposite party-Bank and as such, it has been contended that it is not a fit case where this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, should entertain the writ petition. Moreover, the filing of the earlier writ petition being WPC No. 2643 of 2016 has not been disclosed in this writ petition and as such, it has been submitted that on the ground of suppression of fact, the instant writ petition is not fit to be entertained. It has further been contended that since the notice had been issued under Section 13(2) as well as 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and there is alternative remedy available under the statute, hence in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writ petition is not fit to be entertained. 4. While rebutting the argument on behalf of the learned counsel representing the Bank, Mr. D. Panda, learned Sr. 4. While rebutting the argument on behalf of the learned counsel representing the Bank, Mr. D. Panda, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the affidavit enclosing the extract of the NPA Management policy clarifies that the Board of Director is to authorize the Zonal Manager or the Guardian Zonal Manager, in specific cases but here in the instant case the resolution of the Board of Director authorizing the Assistant General Manager or the Chief Manager has not been enclosed and hence, the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction issue has got substance. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The admitted position in this case is that the loan was sanctioned in favour of M/s. Zuvan Agro Pvt. Ltd., a partnership firm having two Directors, namely, Lalit Kumar Maity and Mrs. Sukeshi Pani, both are husband and wife. The opposite party-Bank had sanctioned a term loan on 20.5.2013 for an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs and cash credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 24 lakhs. Subsequently, the limit against the term loan was revised to the extent of Rs. 45.24 lakhs on 19.7.2014 while the cash credit limit was enhanced to Rs. 54 lakhs on 19.7.2014. The said credit facilities granted by the Bank are secured by the following assets/securities; (i) Hypothecation of stocks and book debts; (ii) Equitable mortgage of factory land and building, plant and machineries purchased out of bank finance over plot No. 51, Khata No. 55/9, land area-1802 sft. At mouza Kanchila, P.S. Balianta, Dist. Khurda in the name of M/s. Zuvan Agro Pvt. Ltd. The Bank has given a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 2.4.2015 since the Company has defaulted in repayment of the dues to the Bank. Hence, the account has been classified as Non-Performing Asset w.e.f. 31.3.2015 in accordance with the direction/guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The Bank has again issued a fresh notice on 20.7.2015 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner has admitted the liability, but not repaid the amount and as such, possession notice was issued under the provisions of Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 16.11.2015. The Bank has again issued a fresh notice on 20.7.2015 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner has admitted the liability, but not repaid the amount and as such, possession notice was issued under the provisions of Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 16.11.2015. One of the Directors, namely, Lalit Kumar Maity has approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2643 of 2016 and a coordinate Bench of this Court at the first instance vide order dated 23.2.2016 while issuing notice upon the opposite party-Bank and after hearing the learned counsel representing the Bank, has passed the following order: "Heard. As an interim measure, it is directed that the auction fixed for tomorrow may be held but no confirmation of the same shall be made and the petitioner shall not be physically dispossessed from the property put to auction till the next date." The case was listed on 29.3.2016. Since the amount as has been directed by this Court was not deposited in the Court, the Court accepting the assertion of the petitioner that the negotiation is going on regarding disposal of its property, which is at the final stage, on the prayer of the petitioner, extended the time to deposit the money in terms of the order dated 22.3.2016 and observed that in case the said deposit is not made by it, the writ petition may be dismissed and directed the case to be listed on 12.4.2016. The case was listed on 12.4.2016, but as per the undertaking, the money as directed by this Court was not deposited and hence, the writ petition was dismissed. 7. We are narrating the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2643 of 2016 for the reason that the said writ petition has been filed by one Lalit Kumar Maity, who is the husband of the present petitioner, namely, Mrs. Sukeshi Pani, praying again for settlement and quashing of the notice assailing the jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer, who has issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and very surprisingly the declaration regarding the disposal of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2643 of 2016 has not been given, which is the mandatory requirement as per Rule 2(1) of Chapter-XV of the Orissa High Court Rules to give declaration regarding filing of the earlier litigation. However, the writ petition can be dismissed only on the ground of suppression of material fact regarding non-disclosure of the filing of W.P.(C) No. 2643 of 2016 which has been dismissed for non-compliance of the specific direction passed by this Court regarding deposit of the amount against the liability, but the same prayer is being made in the instant writ petition and it is settled that for the same relief, successive writ petition is not maintainable. But the petitioner has raised a legal issue regarding the jurisdiction of the authorized officer and as such, we thought it proper to answer this. 8. The Legislation has been enacted upon known as "Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, wherein under Rule 2(a), "authorized officer" has been defined, which speaks as follows: "2(a) "authorized officer" means an officer not less than a chief manager of a public sector bank or equivalent, as specified by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the secured creditor or any other person or authority exercising powers of superintendence, direction and control of the business or affairs of the secured creditor, as the case may be, to exercise the rights of a secured creditor under the Act." 9. The sole contention raised by the petitioner that the authorized officer means that an officer not less than a chief manager of a public sector bank or equivalent, as specified by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the secured creditor or any other person or authority exercising powers of superintendence, direction and control of the business and in this case notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been issued by the Asst. General Manager, who is not coming under the definition of "authorized officer" as defined under Rule 2(a) of the Rules, 2002. 10. We are not in agreement with this submission reason being that the notice under Section 13(2) has been issued by the Assistant General Manager of the concerned Branch, which happens to be a Scale-V Branch and as has been informed by the learned counsel for the Bank that the Bank has been classified scale-wise, i.e. the category of branch as Scale-II, Scale-III, Scale-IV, & Scale-V. In the category of a Scale-II Branch, the Manager in the rank of a Scale-II officer is made incumbent i.e. commonly known as Branch Manager. Likewise, in the category of a Scale-III, the Scale-III officer is called as Branch manager being incumbent, which is also a Senior Manager rank officer and in the category of a Scale-IV branch, the Scale-IV officer of the concerned branch, who is also known as Chief Manager, happens to be incumbent of the Branch Manager and likewise, in the category of Branch of a Scale-V, the Scale-V officer happens to be incumbent who is also known as Asst. General Manager and thereafter, the Scale-VI is known as Zonal Manager, who heads the zone and the Scale-VII officer is known as General Manager, who heads the group of zones. In the instant case, notice has been issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the Asst. General Manager of the concerned Branch since the concerned branch is in the category of Scale-V. As per the definition of 'authorised officer" as given in Rule 2(a), the "authorized officer" means an officer not less than a chief manager of a public sector bank or equivalent, as specified by the Board of Directors. This provision is very explicit and clear that the authorized officer can be a Manager not less than the Chief Manager. So far as the instant case is concerned, admittedly, the Assistant General Manager is in the rank of Scale-V and Chief Manager happens to be in the rank of Scale-IV and hence, the Assistant General Manager being higher in the hierarchy than that of the Chief Manager, he cannot be said to be not competent in view of the provision of Section 2(a) of the Rules, 2002. Learned counsel for the Bank has filed one affidavit enclosing therein the NPA Management Policy wherein the authority has been vested to the Chief Manager and above as Authorised Officer as per the provisions made therein under clause 10.5.4, which is being quoted hereunder: "Designating Chief Managers and above as Authorised Officers: In terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, the rights of the secured creditor under the Act may be exercised by one or more of his officers authorized in this behalf. As per the definition given in the Rules, "Authorised Officer" means an officer not less than a Chief Manager of a Public Sector Bank or equivalent as specified by the Board of Directors of the secured creditor. As per the definition given in the Rules, "Authorised Officer" means an officer not less than a Chief Manager of a Public Sector Bank or equivalent as specified by the Board of Directors of the secured creditor. The Board of Directors has accorded approval for designating all the officers of the rank of Chief Manager and above of the Bank as "Authorised Officer" for exercising the powers of the Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and for authorizing the concerned Zonal Manager and in his absence the Guardian General Manager of the Zone at Head Office or elsewhere to allot specific cases to Authorised Officers." 11. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner giving much emphasis upon the line "for authorizing the concerned Zonal Manager and in his absence the Guardian General Manager of the Zone at Head Office or elsewhere to allot the specific cases to the Authorised Officers" and as such, it has been submitted that in the instant case, the Bank has not placed any authority either by the Zonal Manager or by the Guardian Zonal Manager authorizing the Assistant General Manager or the Chief Manager. We on appreciation of the provisions as given under clause 10.5.4 as quoted above, are of the considered view that there are two parts in the quotation, the first part is regarding the conferment of the power upon the Authorised Officer by the Board of Directors to exercise the power of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and authorizing the concerned Zonal Manager and in his absence, the Guardian Zonal Manager of the Zone at the head office or elsewhere to allot specific cases to the Authorised Officers keeping the fact into consideration that there are branches like Scale-II or Scale-III, which is being controlled by the incumbent having a Scale-II officer or Scale-III officer and if any loan had been sanctioned from the Branch like Scale-II or Scale-III, in that situation, the requirement is to authorize the Scale-II or Scale-III officer being incumbent of that type of branch by the Zonal Manager or in his absence the Guardian General Manager. But so far as the Scale-IV or above branch is concerned, the Board of Directors has accorded approval for designating all the officers of the rank of Chief Manager or above of the Branch as authorized officer for exercising the powers of the Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002 as would be evident from Rule 2(a) of Rules, 2002 read with Clause 10.5.4 of the NPA Management Policy, as quoted above. We after taking into consideration the explicit provisions in this regard, are of the considered view that the Assistant General Manager being Scale-V, cannot be said to be an authority without any jurisdiction to exercise the power of authorized officer so far as Scale-V Branch is concerned. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition has been filed by suppressing the earlier writ petition and also there is provision of alternative remedy as provided under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the result, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Petition Dismissed