--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 7818 / 2011 AJAY YADAV AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE BANK OF MYSOER AND ANOTHER * * * * * O R D E R ( 23/9/2011) The petitioners before this Court have filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action initiated by the respondent Bank under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, claiming the following reliefs : a) That, by issuance of appropriate writ, direction and order, the impugned action taken by the respndent under the SARFASI Act including the public notice for auction sale dated 23/8/11 be set aside. b) That the account of the petitioners may be regularised by the issuance of appropriate writ, direction and order and they may be allowed to make payment of regular installments or the complete amount may be allowed to be settled as per OTS --- 2 --- Scheme within a period of one year. c) That, this Hon'ble Court would be further pleased to grant relief to the petitioners, as is deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Alternatively, the petitioner may be provided breathing time to approach the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur to challenge the action of the respondents. The contention of the petitioners is that a notice was issued u/S. 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 23/8/2011 and the petitioners have submitted a detailed and exhaustive reply. However, the respondents have taken further steps for delivery of the possession of the property. Petitioners have raised various grounds before this Court. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, at the outset, has argued before this Court that the petitioners are having a remedy of preferring an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if they are aggrieved by the action of the respondent Bank initiated under Sec. 13 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. --- 3 --- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent Bank on the question of admission and perused the record. In the present case, the petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by the action initiated by the respondent Bank under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is true that the petitioners have submitted a reply but the fact remains that proceedings are pending under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 in para 44, 45 and 46 has held as under : 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation --- 4 --- on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and / or its agencies / instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies / institutions, which (sic will) ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising --- 5 --- its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order. The apex court in the aforesaid case has exhaustively dealt with the availability of alternative remedy and exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore as an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the question of entertaining the present writ petition in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. The admission is declined. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR