e-^- SlHGLEBENeH ^ -' li: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR1LJ5F CHHATTISGARH AT^BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. t^\^9 / 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^^^y ^..•Wp^.-'' ^^'•^- .^^ /'' ^/ '^ NARENDRA PRASAD SAH S/o Late Shri. B.N.Sah, Aged about 44 Years, Employed in Coal India Ltd. R/o:House No. Plot No. 22 Sagardeep Enclave, Ameri, Near Usalapur Rly.Crossmg, (PO) Usalapur, BILASPUR(CG) VERSUS1 ^ 1. CENT BA^K HOME FINANCE LIMITED, (A subsidiary ofCentral Bank oflndia) Through : The Branch Manager, i Cent Bank Home Finance Limited, i Gandhi Chowk, Near Laxmi Talkies, Juna,BILASPUR - 495001 (Chhattisgarh) . 2. The Branch Manager, STATEBANKOFINDIA > TIFRA BRANCH, BILASPUR District: Bilaspur (CG) 3. Smt. Boondi Bai ^/o Sbri. Jageshwar Prasad Yadav, Aged about 74 Years, Farmer, R/Q : Mungeli Road., Near Ajanta Saw Mill^ BILASPUR, District: Bilaspur (CG) 4. M/s Surya Builders & Promoters^ Through : Its Proprietor-Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri. Mansharam Sahu, Residing at: KaliMandir, Tifra, BILASPUR(CG) ^5. Shri. Govind Choudhary S/o Late Shri. H.K.Choudhary R/o Old Power House, Torwa, Thana: Torwa BILASPUR District: Bilaspur (CG) / 6 The Sub-Registrar, Regisfrar Qffice, BILASPUR(CG) lj .. '•' 1 WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER Same as given in the Cause Title above. L*nAO Advocata /'^- "^ \^/^ ^, \^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'bie Shii Prashant Kumar Mishr; Writ Petition (C) No. 4499/2010 PETITIONER : Narendra Prasad Sah Versiis RESPONDENTS : Cent Bank Home Finance Limited & Ors Appearance: Shri B.P. Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for respondentNo.l. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (26.08.2010) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12/07/2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur 011 an application and iii exercise ofpowers under section 14 ofthe Securitization and Reconstmction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAE.SI Act'). (2) The respondent No.l had submitted the subject applicalion after issuance ofand publication ofnotice under section 13 (2) ofthe SAP.FAESI Act when the borrower did not deposit the loan amount after expiiy ofthe period of60 days. The application under section 14 has been moved for taking possession ofthe secured asset. The Chief Judicial Magistmte has issued warrant of possession in favour of the respoiidentNo.l. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not the borrower and is bonafi.de purchaser ofthe propQTty from its f f'"^,. 1 / / f\ ^ previous owner and is in possession since last so many years. According to learned counsel there is 110 out staiiding aniount against the petitioneL therefore issuance of warrant of possession without arraying the petitioner as pail>' 1s illegal. (4) In the matter of United Bank of India Vs. Saty'awati Toiidon and others decided on 26 July, 2010 the Supreme Coiirt has held thus in paragraph 17 ofthe report: 'There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No.l had any tangible grievance agaiiist the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an - application under Section 17(1). The expression 'any person9 used in Section 17(1) is ofwide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who ma.y be atYected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Sectioii 14. Both, the Tribimal and the Appellate Tribuiial are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters v^ithin a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFA-ESI Act are both expeditious and effective. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled'law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Ai-ticle 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this mle applies with greater rigour in matters involvinj recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and -, the dues of banks aad other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to th© action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc.,' the High ^^&s^^ ^3 .^, (5) Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Pariiament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contaiii comprehensive procedure for recovery' of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitutiou, a person must exliau.st the remedies available underthe relevant statiite". In view ofthe law laid down by the Ho?i<>bie Coml and in view of the availability of the altemative remedy of filing an application before the tribunal under section 17(1) ofthe SARFAESI Act this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed under article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia. (6) The petition is dismissed as not mamtamable——- - - Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge