r^. HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRITPETITION (0 No. 679 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vinod Kumar Jain, s/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Jain, aged about 45 years, R/o Ashoka Ratna, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G). Versus I. State Bank of India, through Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Management Centre, Zonal Office Building, Bayron Bazar, Raipur (C.G). 2. M/s. Shrishrimal Plantation Limited, through its Director, Ravi Bhavan, Jai Sthambh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227_OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Ms. Ginney Jetley and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the Petitioner. Sunil Kuniar Sinha.^T, ORDER (15.02.2010) (1) By allowing I.A.No.2/2010, the petitioner is exempted frpm filing the certified copy of.the impugned order. (2) Heardon admission. (3) Petitioner Vinod Kumar Jain has filed this petition challeriginj J;he orderdated 30J 1.2009 passedby the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in OA Ex. 17/2002 (Annexure P-1). By the said order, the petitioner's prayer to decide the condition of delivery of possession of property auctioned on 14.9.2009 has been refused. W.P(C).No.679/201 Ui (4) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The petitioner participated in auction sale of certain property which was subject matter of OA Ex. No.17/2002. He deposited earnest^ money of Rs.21 lakhs for participating in the auction sale. The petitioner had subraitted his form appending pre-eonditio'n that possession of the property is to be ensured within sbc months. According to the petitioner, subject to the above condition, the final bid of Rs.2.77 crores submitted by him was the highest bid. The petitioner was also'ready to pay 15% of the reserve value but he did not deposit because his pre-condition raised relating ! to delivery of vacant possession was not fulfilled. In this: situation, the petitipner filed an application before the Recovery Officer, Debts RecoveryTribunal on 16.9.2009 to decide the pre- condition about deliveiy of vacant possession. According to the petitipner, he also expressed his willingness to deposit 15% immediately upon decisiQn of the pre- condition and the balance 75% within the time prescribed in law that is 15 days. This application was entertained by the Recovery Officer and ultimately it was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.11.2009 holding that the purpose of fhe petitioner was to frustrate the auction proceeding held on 14.9.2009, otherwise he would have deposited 25% of purchase money immediately to the Recovery Inspector and thereafter 75% remaining amount within 15 days as prescribed under the Rules. The Recovery Officer held that the application filed by the petitioner i.e., highest - bidder, therefore, was not maintainable. (5) Admittedly, the said order passed by the Recovery Officer is appealable u/s 30 of.the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial InstitutionsAct, 1993 (for short, the Act, 1993') which; l::''4; m f! •':"m y"sv ^'^•'M :S*3 ItS SGB lft3 IWS 'IM ^i inS!l'itM'illte*Nil- -H— W.P(C).No.679/2010 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recoveiy Officer made under thisj Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. (6) Ms. G^inney Jetley, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that appeal has already been filed u/s 30 of the Act, 1993, but the proceedings in appeal have not taken place as the members of the DRT Bar Association have unanimously resolved to abstain from DRT including Registrar and Recovery Officers, by resolution dated 21.01.2010 and in the meanwhile, re-auction has been scheduled to be held on 18.02.2010, therefore, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing this writ petition as at present practically he has beconie remediless, so far as statutory remedy is concerned. (7) I am unable to accept the said contention raised by Ms. Ginney Jetley. Only on account of the members of local Bar Association abstaining from DRT, consumers of jusdce cannot be held to be remediless. In such a situation, we have experience that the Lawyers from other places or the parties aggrieved frequently appear before the Court to cariy on its business and dispehsation ofjustice never stops for such petty reasons. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that alone would not be a ground to entertain a writ petition when appropriate, efficacious statutory remedy has already been availed by the petitioner. "(8) - For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to admit this petition for hearing. The petition is Uable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to exhaust his remedy before the appellate authority in I'Sl., '>-; Bl a8pnf eqms Jpmn^ pung -/PS •OTOZ 'Aisruqajjo ingT uo ppq aq o^ pssodojd uopon^ sq^ :SUTC§B AB^s/jaipJ mus^ui jo ;iiBjg joj uoR^anddB a^udojddB guTssajd/gmiy ^q A^I ipiM aoLrepjoao^ ,OlOZ/6A9'oN'(0)d'A