HON’BLE HIGH COURT ‘OF CHHATTISGARH AT BEASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. IMWW / 2010 PETITIONER : / M.SANGAMESHWAR RAO ’ S/o Late Shri. M. K. Rao Aged about 4'7 Years, . House No. MIG 16, Sagardeep Enclave, Mungeli Road, Near Usalapur R1y.Cfossing, (PO) Usalapur, BI (CG) VERSUS a RESPONDENTS , )1. (A subsidiary of Central Bank of India) Through :The Branch Manager, Cent Bank Home Finance Limited, Gandhi Chowk, Near Laxrni Talkies; Juna, BILASPUR — 495001 ' (Chhattisgarh) he h nr TT B F u d, CENT BANK HOME FINANCE LIMITED, W ‘ T Cief Maage, SAE ANK O INDIA, TIRA F BRANCH, , . Bilaspur-Raipr Roa BILASPUR - 4901(.) 50CG The ssistant enral Manage, STA BANK F INDIA etail ssets 7 ma Enterprises redit re (RSEC), st Flo 0f SAKA BRAN, - 4950 (CG mt. nd Bai I W/o Late Jagwar 'av, ged , Aglu BILASPUR CG s urya Bders Promots, , Throh : Its oprietor—Sants Kumar Sahu, V o Late Shri. ansharam ahu, esiding at Kali Mdir, Tra, (CG) ' ‘vzt A about 74 Years ricutrist, /o Mnei R Near A nt Saw R : ugl oad, jaa Mill, . () IN THE LASPUR A Ge r TE O , R A Sll C Cent AC I or RNDA CH BILASPUR 01 ) S Booi esh Yad M/ S uil & er ug Proh S/ M S R : an if BILASPUR /6. Mr. Chaitram Sahu S/o Shri. J.P.Sahu, Aged about 42 Years, R/o z Arvind Nagar, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, RILASPUR (CG) / 7. The sub-Registrar, Registrar Office, RILASPUR (CG) OF INDIA WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION we HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUE $3: HOH’Me Shri Pmshant Kumar Mishra “frit Petifion (C2 N0. 4i67i2$10 , PETETIONER : M. SangameshWar Rae V Versus RESPGNDENTS : Cent Bank Home Finance Limited & 9w W Shri BP Rao, cotmsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for respoxident N0. l. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counSel for respondentS No.2 and 3. , , N VVRIT PETITEQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE M C$NSTITUTIDN OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (26.08.2010) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12/07/2010 passed byfhe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilasour on an appiication and in exercise of powers under section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement 'of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for shoxt ‘the SARFAESI Act’). l {2) The respondent No.1 had submitted the subject application otter issuance of and publication of notice under section 13 (2) ofthe SARFAESI Act when the borrower did not deposit the loan amount respondent No.1 . {3) arraying the petitioner as party is illegal. (4) In the matter of United Bank of mdia Vs. Satyawan' Tondon ¥ w L aggrieved person under expeditious and eEective. Unfortunately, public money and ' the dues ofbanks and other financial institutions. In our View; t I t r I J t t r3r While deaEing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recoveiy of the pubiic dues, em, the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues afe code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain eomprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such eases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitutioxn a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute”. {5) In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the availability of the alternative remedy of filing an application before the tribunal under section 17 (l) ofthe SARFAESI Act, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed under article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. {6) The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. /,..m«/ /