1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD) No.12359 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 S.Ganesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Authorized Officer, M/s.Indian Overseas Bank, Leigh Bazaar Branch, No.5, First Floor, V.S.A. Commercial Complex, Near Bus Stand, Salem - 636 004. 2.The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, 3rd & 4th Floor, Kalyani Towers, 4/162, Madurai Melur Road, Uthangudi, Madurai-625 107. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned sale notice dated 24.08.2011 passed in D.RC.No.29/2011 in R.P.No.32 of 2011 by the 2nd respondent for the auction sale to be conducted on 02.11.2011 by the 1st respondent which was published on Thinathanthi News Paper dated 25.09.2011 and subsequent recovery order passed in I.A.No.1365 of 2011, I.A.No.1366 of 2011 & I.A.No.1367 of 2011 in R.P.No.32 of 2011, dated 28.10.2011 by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to value the property as per law and on merit. For petitioner .. Mr.Mohamed Nawshad For respondents .. Mr.Pala Ramasamy ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of a direction to quash the impugned sale notice dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 24.08.2011 passed in D.RC.No.29/2011 in R.P.No.32 of 2011 by the 2nd respondent for the auction sale to be conducted on 02.11.2011 by the 1st respondent which was published on Thinathanthi News Paper, dated 25.09.2011 and subsequent recovery order passed in I.A.Nos.1365, 1366 & 1367 of 2011 in R.P.No.32 of 2011, dated 28.10.2011, by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to value the property, as per law and on merits. 2.Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an exparte debt recovery certificate, dated 08.07.2011, has been issued by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, in terms of exparte order, dated 19.09.2011, specifying for an amount of Rs.28,58,168/-. It is contended that such an order is perverse. It is further contended that the subject property is agricultural property and the same is exempted from the attachment. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the auction is fixed on 02.11.2011 and as such the petitioner is left with no other alternative except to approach this Court. 4.Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner has challenged the auction notice and the certificate issued by the Recovery Officer pursuant to the award passed in this matter and as such the petitioner is having statutory remedy of filing appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 5.We have carefully considered the rival submissions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record. 6.The fact remains that the petitioner has challenged the auction notice, dated 24.08.2011 and the order, dated 28.10.2011, passed in three applications viz., in I.A.No.1365 of 2011 (emergent petition), I.A.No.1366 of 2011 (petition to set aside the exparte order) and I.A.No.1367 of 2011 (stay petition), by the Recovery Officer pursuant to the award passed for the recovery of the amount claimed by the first respondent bank. It is not disputed that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by challenging the award. But, instead of exhausting such effective alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7.It is needless to state that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in a matter relating to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the parties are entitled to approach only the said forum and they cannot invoke the writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 jurisdiction of this Court. It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110 in paragraph No.55 as hereunder: "55.It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." 8.In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to take appropriate action in the manner known to law by approaching Debts Recovery Tribunal, as per the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Authorized Officer, M/s.Indian Overseas Bank, Leigh Bazaar Branch, No.5, First Floor, V.S.A. Commercial Complex, Near Bus Stand, Salem - 636 004. 2.The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, 3rd & 4th Floor, Kalyani Towers, 4/162, Madurai Melur Road, Uthangudi, Madurai-625 107. +1cc to mr.Mohamed Nowshad, Advocate Sr.No.37160 gcg ssk/12.11.2011 /4c-3p/- Order in W.P.(MD)No.12359 of 2011 31.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/