JUDGMENT Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J. - The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of possession notice dated 12.07.2018 [Annexure P-9] issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Security Enforcement Act, 2002 [for brevity ‘the Act’]. 2. Central Bank of India, Jalandhar has been arrayed as respondent in the writ petition. 3. The petitioners availed a cash credit limit of Rs.32,88,000/- from the respondent-bank. In order to secure the loan, residential property measuring 286 sq. yards comprised in khasra no. 55/12/13 min situated at Gumtala, Sub-Urban Abadi Tehsil & District Amritsar was mortgaged with the respondent-bank. Brother of the petitioner No.1 also availed a housing loan for which the same property was mortgaged. The petitioners defaulted in repayment of the cash credit limit availed. The account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 27.02.2017. The respondent-bank issued notice dated 29.12.2017 under Section 13(2) of the Act. As per notice, there was a total outstanding amount of Rs.37,22,128/-. 4. Thereafter, a notice dated 12.07.2018 was issued under Section 13(4) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved of the notice dated 12.07.2018, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that cash credit facility is over drawn by Rs.3 lakhs approximately and in order to show the bona fides of the petitioners, a cheque of Rs.5 lakhs was produced in the Court. The same was returned back to the counsel for the petitioners with a direction to deposit the same with the respondent bank within 3 days. 7. Notice of motion was issued for 30.07.2018. 8. On 30.07.2018, status quo was ordered to be maintained and the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that demand draft of Rs.2 lakhs more shall be produced in the Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent filed a calculation sheet of over due amounts of the petitioners as well as of the housing loan account of the brother of petitioner No.1 for which the same property has been mortgaged. As per calculation sheet, the sanction limit for over draft facility is Rs.32,88,000/-, as on date, there are over dues of Rs.2,40,196/-. Further, the petitioners have to pay Rs.50,000/- for fee of recovery agency and Rs.59,835/- for publication and legal charges. There is an over due amount of Rs.1,55,008/- in the housing loan account. 10. As per calculation sheet, the sanction limit for over draft facility is Rs.32,88,000/-, as on date, there are over dues of Rs.2,40,196/-. Further, the petitioners have to pay Rs.50,000/- for fee of recovery agency and Rs.59,835/- for publication and legal charges. There is an over due amount of Rs.1,55,008/- in the housing loan account. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced a demand draft No. 134 amounting to Rs.1 lakh in the Court and two cheques bearing Nos. 47 and 50, total amounting to Rs.90,000/-. The demand draft and cheques have been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent-bank. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is a difference in calculation of over due amount and the same needs to be reconciled. He further contended that the respondent-bank has wrongly charged the expenses for recovery agency and for publication and legal charges. He undertakes that after the reconciliation of the accounts, the petitioners would, by 30.09.2018, clear the over due amounts of the over draft limit as well as the housing loan. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the expenses amounting to Rs.1,09,835/- which have been claimed by the respondent-bank are not legally payable by the petitioners. There is no legal justification which has been put-forth by the respondent-bank for the said charges. Similar charges have been deleted by the Division Bench of this Court in case reported as Paramjit Singh Vs. UCO Bank Ghudani Kalan & Another 2007(49) RCR Civil 325, wherein it has been held as under:- We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and find that the expenses amounting to Rs. 43,300/- which have been claimed by the respondents are not legally payable by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the respondents attempted to justify the incurring of aforesaid expenses by citing Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, but could not refer to any specific rule or provision of law or any material on record to substantiate that the expenses incurred by the respondents amounting to Rs. 43,300/- were in any way mandatory and necessarily required to be incurred. In the absence of any legal or valid justification, the liability of the same cannot be fastened on the petitioner. 12. The petitioners shall approach to the respondent-bank within 15 days from today for reconciliation of the accounts. 43,300/- were in any way mandatory and necessarily required to be incurred. In the absence of any legal or valid justification, the liability of the same cannot be fastened on the petitioner. 12. The petitioners shall approach to the respondent-bank within 15 days from today for reconciliation of the accounts. After reconciliation of the accounts, the over due amounts of the over draft limit and the housing loan shall be cleared by 30.09.2018, after deducting the expenses of Rs.1,09,835/- which are detailed below:- Fee for Recovery Agency [Approx.] Rs. 50,000/- Publication and Legal Charges [Approx.] Rs. 59,835/- On payment of overdues, the account shall be regularized. It is clarified that in case of any default in repayment in both the accounts, the respondent-bank would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.