/1 £^' ^' cr^ SINGlf BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2^010 WRIT PETITION ( C ) N0. 0^> OF^ PETITIONERS 1. A-' ^yy/ 'yM/ OYW ^ ^ ^//y ^'/'./ -^ v<?Jyy ^ ^' ^" 3. 4. ^ Tribal Development and Training Institute, Rajpur, District Sarguja (CG), A Non-Government Organisation (Registration No.9626/1980), through its Secretary, Shri M.L. Choudhary, S/o Shri Durga Prasad, aged about 51 years, working as Secretary, Tribal Development and Training Institute, R/o Rajpur, Sarguja (CG). Smt. Pushpanchala Baba Choudhary, W/o M.L. Choudhary, aged about 49 years, working as President, Tribal Development and Training Institute, R/o Rajpur, Sarguja (CG). M.L. Choudhary, S/o Shri Durg^ Prasad, aged about 51 years, working as Secretary, Tribal Development and Trainirtg Institute, R/o Rajpur, Sarguja (CG). Hariram, S/o Sughan, aged about 48 years, R/o Chaura, PO Narsinghpur, District Sarguja (CG). Gopal Sahu, S/o Tulsi Sahu, aged about 42 years, Chairman, Saugaon Mahajan Mukti Swa- Sahayata Samuh Sangh, R/o village Sinchura, Tahsil Rajpur, District Sarguja (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariate, New Delhi. Sarguja Kshetriya Gamin Bank, fhrough its Chairman, Head Office at Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG). Prescribed Authority/ General Manager, Sarguja Kshetriya Gainin Bank, Head Office at Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG). Branch Manager, Sarguja Kshetriya Gamin Bank, Branch Rajpur, District Sarguja (CG). Collector, District Sarguja (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioners, above named, most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under: - -i F—^i i-i-1 il%'ii%^iS^;^&%SlSf:^ll:.itlI'^^^^^^^ ^s^ y -^' l' HIGH CQliJRT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILA8FUR WRTTPETmQN<C)No.08of201Q PETmONER : Tribat Development and Trammg Institute & :.0thfirs. : •• •.^' : . -. ' l..; .'•'.-.••",.;. wm^s'.'-.^ •.:.^ : ,:,- ::• RESPONDENT8 : Uhion of India & Others. WRTT PETTnON WFDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'FHE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA , ' • ...i . SB: Hoii'bleShnSatishK.AaiuIioiriLJ. Present: Sliri Mrigendra Sin^ wiffi ;fbrthe^p€titioner.-.':;^ :.. ' :1.^'1 ';; ; .^^ SMAnand^erm ShriN.N.Rpy, Ad^ocafe^ Shri M.P.S.Bhafia, DeputyG.A. forthe State/respondent No;5. | ORDERCORALV (Passedon.l 1th daybfNovember, 2010) 1. The present petition arises fro notice dated 15.09.2009, under section 13(2) ofthe Securittsat^ Assets and Enfbrcement of Security^^^^I^ (keremafter referredtogs 'theAct, 2002r). . . 2. Leamed counsel appearing fbr th^ petitioner submits 1Jhaf ^ dispute witii regard to entitlement of the petitioners fbr waiver of the agricultural loari imder the Kri^ Yojna, Year2008 (^wmq^rr^rre^to be adjudicated upon by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as imder the scheme, the petitioriers is entM theyaren(>tliablefopayany 3. K is informed at the bar^^ Act, 2002 (Aniiexure R-J/2) has also been passed by tie respondeiT^Bmik. / ^'••^s^ ^^m^^ '•::.^^£;^y\\ ^•^ glili. S&Si SM • t ;i, l^ ^- ?i <^^ 4. The Supreme Court, in^^^^ <& O^^r^ 5 has disapproved^^^^ petition under Articl^ 226 oftiie Constitution ofIndia^ by the High Gourts and it has been made clear fliat any^^^^^^ paynient of loan and other incidental^^^^^^^^d^ teforethe Debts Recover^ toconsidertheotherissuesa^^^ i 5. This Court, iri Smt. Kavita Sharma ^. State Bank of India & O^r^, observed as under: "24, The DRT is fally empowered to go into the questions of all the^^^^^^^ Bank ^ile invoking provisions^^^^^^^^^b^ 2002fbfrecoveryofloanamouiit. 25. The Supreme Courtin AnthorisedOffi Indian Overseas Barsk aiid Aiiother vs. Ashok SawMill.obseryedasunder: 6'37. The consequences ofth^ aii^^ vestedmDRTundersub--secfion(3)of Section 17 necessarily jimplies that tiie DRT is entrtled to question the action ^ ' taken by 1lie securcd <^ traiisactions entered|into^^^^^^^^b^ Section 13(4) of fhe Aet. The I^gislafureby imdiidmg sub-se^ (3) in Section 17 has gone to the extent of vesting the DRT with axrthor^ even set aside a transac^ sale and fo restore possession to the borrower in appropriate cases. Resyltantly, the submissions advaiiced lyy Mr. Gc^alan and Mr. Altaf Ahmed that the DRT has no jyrisdiction to deal with a post-Sectionl3(4) situation, cannotN accepted. 26. Th]as,^ ^ that the petiticmers may not get^^^^^^^^^^^^ opportunity to put fbr^ their cases befbrefheDRTisunfbunded." 6. Inview offoregomg, leamed counsel appearing^^^^^^fo^^^^^^ seeks perniission of this Court to^^^^^^^w^ !(2010)8SCC1IO 2 W.P.(C) No. 3466/2007 &0fherconnectedmatters,decided on 05.08.2010 Mlrl^. i &. S^^Ni?'p??^^f^p^^^^^^f.j^g^J^^ li .©-"-..,.-^'Y g. '^^^^l •m ^M^ 7. 8. liberty to agitatelhe issye before Recovery rlriburiar^^^m pending petitiori i.e. S.A. No. 164/2010, befbre the Debfs Recovery Tribunal^Jabalpur. In view of th^^^^f^ withdrawnwiththeafbrestated^^ Certifiedcopy^today. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit .<J.