Li!?n*IJ< ^»^*&! '&T'^^I'" '^•LJtJATI?'!??^"* A ^LJ Q! ur.,.i.'.MMA_i_!!ouftn!-!, Bl W.P. I'G'! No. 2083/2011 PETiTiONEi Asroha Grih throuah it's Nirman President, sanaKan Shri Samiti, Suresh R. Kumar Agrawai, son of Late Shri Agrawai, Sidharth Chowk, Tikrapara, Raipur, ChhaSisgarh. RESPGr^DENTS J. 4. VERSUS State Bank of India, t'r it's Chlef Manaaer, Administrative Office, Second Raipur, Fioor, Bairan d.f*\l*^ft, W Totalwar, V,'!f£ of Shri Chhattisgarh; ••?• Mn^-2 ^liiL. iviviiCi Rajkumar Totalwar, age not kno'wn to .the petitioner, Plot No. 1-20, Sector 2, Khasra No. 379/13/20, Agroha Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Raipura, Raipur, Ghhattisgarh. Shri Narendra Dixit, son of Shri .Suraj Prasad Dixit, age not known tp the peiiiioncr, Pioi No. D-17, Sector 2. Khasra No. 379, Agroha Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Raipura, Raipur Chhattlsgarh. Chandela Housina Pvt Ltd., throught it's Managing Director, 70, Anand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. l.a'B'T &ET!' t !&iF^.i"t"> uNUfcK E226 OFTKE CONS' IF SNDiA AppeafaHCe: iVir. Arnrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner SUN!L KUMAR SiNHA. i?nfriQrtCQ ^rS.L^&rv S20.04.2011S Heard on admisslon. Petitioner- Agroha Grih Nirman Sahakari Sarniti has fiied this 'writ petltion for the foiiovving relief's:- "10. RELIEF SOUGHT It is prayed t'nat this Hon'bie Court rnay kindiy be pieased to cali for the entire records concerning the mortgage placed with the respondsnt No.1 bank for ths respecfi'v'e properties aiong with the records concerning the issyance ofthe imssugned notification dated25.03.2Q11 (Annexure-P-1), from respondsnt No.1 Bank. 2 This non'bie Court may kindly be pieased to issue appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the notice dated r-fd, f\^ /5n'! •1 /&- Q ^\ ">-~ ^.A.«A* N.t.A -i D'BnL •A.u'a.zon (Annexure-P-1.) passed &y responaentNo.1 BanK. ^^^^ •.'^^^"^^^^^ s <tf3" •A'.P. (C'l Ho. 2083/2011 10.3 Any' othei- reiief/reiief's whic'nthjs rion'bie Court rnay think frt and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, with cost of the pstition may aiso bs pieased to be granted tothe petitionsr. in The petitloher, thus in substance, is praylng for quashrnent 01 the pubiication of the auction sale in consequence of a proceeding dravvn under Section 13 (4) of the Securitlzation and Reconstruction ofFtnanciai Assets and Enforeement uf Security tnterest Act, 2002. Sub section 1 of Section 17 of the Act, 2002 provides that any person (inciuding borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) ofSection 13 taken 'oy the secured creditor or .his authorized officer under this chapter, may make an appiication aiong vvith suchfee, as rnay 'oe prescribedto the Debts Recovery Tribunai having jurisdiction in the matter vflthin foriy-five day's from the date on vvhich such measures had been taken. This makes cfear thatthere is a provision of appeai againstthe measui'eSi 'which may betaken under Section 13 (4) ofthe Act, 2002. Kanaivaiat i.af Chand Sachdev & Others Vs State of & Others. (2011} SCC 782, the Supreme Court heid that t'ne High Co.urt was right in disrnissing thewrit petition on the grounu that an efficacious remedy Was availabie to the appeiiant therein unuerSection 17 of me Aet 2002. T'ne Suprerne Court further heid t'nat it ts vreii setti.eu that oi-dinarily reiief under Articies 226/227 of the Constitution of india .is not available if an efficacious aitemative remedy is availabie to any aggrieved person. The Suprsme Court has referreu to many eariier decisions in this regard. in viev» of the above, vvhen an efficacious aitemative rernedy is avaiiabie to the petitioner, i am not inciined to entertain this writ petition filed by the petitioner for the abovs reiiefs. Accordingly, the vvrit petition is disrnissed at the rnotion stage itseif. However, the petitloner wouid be .at iibeity to avaii statutory remedy avaii'abie to t'ne petitioner under the la'w. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge JM