(^) c-^-^ INJireHIGHCOURT QF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioners ^; s' ^•ff.'h<':i---:L-^.. fi^^1- ^is-..:-':'---,-^ •••-•'^- y.iiijSSS® % Versus W.P.NO. 3002- / 2005 1. M/s Jai Keshri Industries Industrial Estate, Jagdalpur / 2. Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava S/o Shri Jai Narayan Shrivastava Aged about 54 years, • Proprietor M/s Jai Keshri Industries jMayapara Jagdalpur Respondents y^[ ^^. ^%^'/ ' -•y^p' y ..^^ ^y' ^ /' State Bank of India Bank way reclamation Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point,Mumbai Through - Branch Manager, Branch - Jagdalpur, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, Dist: Bastar-fC.G.) ; N.Rama Rao S/o N.Sitaramaiah, 30, Business, Sri Srinivasa Sheet Parpa, Jagdalpur Grih (P) Ltd., The Recoveiy Officer-II Debts Recoveiy Tribunal, Shanti Kunj; Civil Lines, Jabalpur - (M.P.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3ST "i)|.i)Mi|, SrftffTO, Rlcfliyy lWlc(T9iW».^.^.^QQ 200^ ' STteT^ir iN^sn^r AiiwafitT 3Ti^7T?WlTW?rf?ff 15.7-2<»6 Heard Mr. Prafull Bharat, oou(isel for the petitionere, on admission. The petitioners have preferrefl this writ petitiqn under ft.fticte 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India, questioning thej which uttimately came to be decidecj petitioners herein. Accordingly, a petitioners and the same was sent proclamation of sale was issued by +wi<-<*r WP^!I te^t • ^?3(f^IT3n^T legality, proprtety and correctness of the order ciated 29-6-2005 passed by the t^ecovery Officer-11, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. Brief facts leading to filing ofyhis writ petition are that the petitionets herein took loan from respondent No.1 Bar^k and when the petitionere failed to repay the loan amount, respondent No.1 filed 4 civil suit before the Debts Reoovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, which was registered as jT.A.No.6/98, for recovery of the amount, and by the judgment dated 17-1-2000 by the said Tribunal, and a decree to the effeijit of Rs. 32,79.767/- was passed against the recovery certifioate was issued against the to the Recovery Officer. Vide Annexure P-3 the Recovery Officer on 10-1-2005, the same has been challenged in this writ petjtion on the ground that the said proolamation being time barred, the Recovery qfficer was -not entitled to attach or sate the immovable properiy. Learned counsel for the petitjonere argued that in view of Seotion 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks an^t Financiat Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act of 1993'), provisions of Second and Third Schedules to the tncome Tax Act, 1961, are applicable. As per Rute 6^-B of the Second Schedule to the Inoome Tax Act, 1961, sale of immovabte prop^rty cannot be made after the expiry of three yeare from the end of the financlal ye^r in which the order giving rise to a demand of any tax, was passed. Leamed counsel submits that as the decree in question was passed on 20 January, 2000, and tljie proclamation was issued on 10-1-2005, it is clearly time barred and the same is ^ithout jurisdiction. He further submits that the petitjoners have raised objection to tiis effect and the same has been rejected by the Reoovery Officer. XI-HC-22 STI^TECT f^-iw.sn^r giiiwgfstr .-';.. -i ..f,,-J"^-;:^?^^gs'' ,^-".^ 3's? ^ww^, STTiwifi, Riciwy »41i-trtlsh<^i* •••"-•••'••••—'"••-••"••^j- 2005~ 3n^T gTtffW af?(T Learned counsel for the petitic^iere uiged that since the order passed by the Recovery Offjcer is patently Itlegal, th of this Court under Article 227 of ^refore, he is entitted to invoke the jurisdiction (he Constitutiori, of India, for exeroising the supervisory jurisdtetion. He also sijbmitted that the said Recovery Officer has passed the order without jurisdiction. Having heard tearned coud^el for the petitionere, 1 have perused the documents and relevant law. Sectiijn 30 of the Act of 1993 provides for appeal against the order of Reoovery Offlcer, "Notwithstanding anyt]iing contained in seotion 29, any person aggrieved by a(i order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, of the Recovery Officer before the T the petitionere herein before the judioi^l authority. In the circumstances, the peti' As such, 1 am oftheopinion that in extraordinary jurisdiction should be of. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.25 Parties are entitled for certifiee ^1'illd-fl-i WRff ff fe^t'; ^aiRfiTsn^r ^vhich envisages that fvithin thirty days from the date on which a copy of the orqler is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal". Therefore, a statutory prowsioi|i has been made for appeal agalnst the order ibunal and alternative remedy is available to |oners ought to have availed that opportunity. ^iew of tNs provision, it is not a fit case that Invoked. Accofdingly, the writ petitjon is dismissed, at the admission stage itse|lf. Learned counsel for the peti(ioners submits ffiat as the petitioners have preferred this writ petitlon, the questtofi of limitation will arise. It is for the Tribunal to consid^r the request for condoning the delay in fillng the appeal. 4/2005 and I.A.No.5871/2005 stand disposed copyofthisorder, sdl- L.C. Bhadoo