^••s^^^ A '" "'^•-•-tne S i .-•ll. ^fPy-^"^ •J^Vs'-i ^! "":'- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BI1ASPTIR H.'Prr PPTTTTO^T Mn T.'ll 'ViVJ.1 Al^j.lll^^l^.i^^.A'-rl. of2005 Santosh Asrawai S/o R-D.Agrawal, Aged 45 yeai's, Dii'eetor M/s. Batra ladustries Ltd. K/o 33, Doongaji Colony Raipur District. Raipur ,.<J. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Co- operative Depaittaeiit, Maiitrala; Bhavaii, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Cl-iliattisearh Rai-y'a S- Through its Managing Director, todira Vyavsayik Parisar, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Authorised Ofiicer, Chhattisgarh Rajya iank Ltd. Sharda Chowk, R.D.A. Building, Raipur (C.G.) titmTTr<-TkT?'TlTrrT<^-fi.T r T^TT>T?TS AT>Tr?r^T r' ^^^ f^'^'f /~\T? T'TTI"' ^"'/^"^.TC'TTT? TTlT^\'?t.? f^v? VVKli millluni uriluti<KAKIii-L,i:,^2.t5Uz/ *JV lli& <UUl'<aillullUi'< Ul' INDIA iS: Hon'Me ^1£S. Preseut: Shri Rajeev Slirivastava, Advocate forfhe petitioaer. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govemment Advocate for the Stete/respondeiit No. 1 iri B.D. Advocate for the restiondetu. No. 2 (Passed on 20"' day of Aprii, 2009). r, bv thi.s petition, seeks followiaa reliefs: "7.1 The petitioners above aamed most respectfiilly pray this tlon'ble Court to call for fhe records for pemsal of fhis Hon'bie Court. 7.2. The petitioners named above most respectfally pray to tliis rj^<<,7?-,1<3 t to issue wt'it ot eettiofari impugned notice dated 7 April, 2005 contaiaed ia Annexure P/3. 7.3 The petitioners above named most respecttully pray that this i-:tin<r the L& Hon'ble Court to issue writ of mandanius respondent-Bank not to take coercive methods for repaynert of loa.il and allow the petitioaers to repay the loan witliin 7 vears ofits sanction. 7.4 Aiiy ofli isf, wliich. lu^y be suitabic 1X1 thc fa-CtS Stild circumstances ofthe ease, may also be granted. Tbe indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner is the Direcfor ofa tiraa namelv M/s. Batra Industries Litnited which is running a hotel 'Chidambara laternationai'. For establishment ofthe said hotel, a loan ol'Rs. 437 lacs was sanctioned by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Bank 1<'"..A. ' ': ^'^^'?fr. "'[ •»£3^ ^ 'i,-K ^ .4:::^—: Limited, Raipur vide letter dated 06.08.2003 (Annexiu-e P/l). ' e petitioner could not deposit the iustallmente ofthe loaa properiy due to to readjust the mstallment. llie respondent-Bank agreed to fix the insrtallmenits as quarterly iustead ofmonfhly vide letter dated 30.07.2004 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, fhe respondent Bank sent various notices to the petitioaer for paymeat of loan insstallments. UItimately, tfae respondent Bank issued a notice dated 07.04.2009 (Annexure P/3) to the petitioner under section 13(2) ofthe S of Financial Assets and Enfbrcement Interest Act, 20Q2 (fbr short 'fhe Act, 2002') stating that the petitioner is required to pay the entire loan amount, accnied interest and all other expenses in one Sump sum. Being aggrieved, fhe petitioner has filed this petitioa for several lieis, as s Section 17 of fhe Act 2002 provides fbr an appeal to the Debls Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in tbe matter wsthin forty-five days. The petitioner, wittiout avaiSing the said statutory remedy, has approached fhjs Court directly with the piea that tfae petitionei- has to deposit 75% of the total amount and the tribunal is not regu'arly The Supreme Court, in State ofH.P, and other v. Gujarat Ambuja CementLtd. and afiolher^, held as under: "17. We shall first deal with tlie plea regarding altemative reaiedy as raised by tlic appellaut State. Except for a psfiod • when Artiele 226 was amended W the Constitution (Forty- second Ameii(imen(t) Act, 1976, fhe power relatirig to ' (2805) 6 SCC 499 altemative reniedv has been considered to be a mle ofself- mi( In L.K.Verma v. HMTLtd and anoffse-P, the Suprsme Court has further held as under: ,,.-"a 20. 1'he High Court in exercise of its jurisdictian. under Article 226 of tfae Coiistitution, iii a givea case altfaough may not entertain a writ petition inter alia oa the ground of availability of alteraative remedy, but fhe said rule eannot be said to be ofuniversal application. Despite existence of an alternative remedy, a writ court may exereise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review inter alia in cases where the co'iul or tiie ii-ibiaia! lacks uilierent jurisdiction or tbr enforcement of fuBdamental right or if there Sias beeii a vioiation ofa pmiciple ofnafruraljustice or where vireg oftfae Act is in question. In the aforemeirtioned circuiiistaiice, fhe altemative remedy has been held not fo operate as a bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. Ltd. Ond State of H.P. v. Gvjrat Ainbuja Cement Ltd.'f 6. Having regard to settled position of law, there is no exceptional circumstances available in tfais petition so as to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia. According to leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner, fhe only exceptiorial circumstances is that the petitioner has to pay 75% ofthe total amount before moving tbe statutory altemative remedy available under section 17 ofthe Act 2002. There is no violation ofthe principle ofnatural justice or breach offundamental right in fhe matter. The Debt Recovery < Tribunal, it is informed atthe Bar, is fuiictioning. 7. As a result and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed, as being not maintainable in view of availability of effective statutoiy appellate fbrum. No order asto costs. jlllt r ^L^ ,.1 ^^y .Vt^ 2 SCC 269