^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 829 of2010 ssl: M/S. Gauri Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank ORDER Post for •? .03.2010 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH COURT^F CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 829 of2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS o 1 M/s. Gauri Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (a body Corporate registered under the Companies Act, 1956), through its Director Shri Brij Jeevan Rai, aged about 47 years, R/o House No. 135/136 (Opposite House No.262), Street No.5-B, Shanti Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G). 2. Brij Jevan Rai, aged about 47 years, R/o House No. 135/136 (Opposite House No.262), Street No.5-B, Shanti Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G), Versus 1. The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank, through the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chandra Mauiya Complex, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G). 2. The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chandra Maurya Complex, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G). 3. The Syndicate Bank, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD), Head Office, Manipal (Karnataka) PIN 576 104. 4. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, Tahsil and District Jabalpur (M.P). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. S. N. Choubey, Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal SE Mr. Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the Petitioners. Sunil Kuinar Sinha, J, ORDER (^, .03.2010) (1) Being aggrieved with the order dated 13.01.2010 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P) and the ... .i'^' '•si"-.:•^•fe \-r'lt.SW!&!. V '®as?"''r-a '^iS^*^ ^ ^ .^^ W.P(C).No.829/2010 auction notice dated 12.02.2010 (Annexure P-32), the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking quashment of the said order and auction notice. (2) Mr. S. N. Choubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in S.A.No.74/2009, filed by the petitioners u/s 17 of the Securidzation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002) against the Syndicate Bank, sorae interim order was passed on 17.07.2009. It was continued on 24.8.2009. Then on the stateruent made by the counsel for the Bank that no auction will be held without publishing the auction notice after soliciting the consent of the petitioners/borrowers, the Tribunal fixed the matter for further orders. Thereafter on 16.11.2009, the Bank filed an application for clarification of the order dated 17.09.2009 pressing upon that consent of the borrowers/petitioners is never required under the Act, 2002 or the Rules made thereunder. The Tribunal considered the application of the respondent-Bank and reviewed the order dated 17.09.2009 and deleted from the order the words "after soliciting consent from the borrower". He submitted that the order is bad in law which deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that after passing of the said order, now the Bank has published the impugned auction notice dated 12.2.2010 (Annexure P-32) and the date of auction has been fixed on 08.03.2010. He also submitted that now the proceedings of the said matter before the ,Debts Recoveiy Tribunal (DRT) are not taking place as the members of the DRT Bar Association had unanimously resolved to abstain from DRT including the Registrar and Recovery Officers by resolution dated 21.01.2010 and in the meanwhile, auction has been scheduled 9 W.P(C).No.829/2010 on 08.03.2010. Therefore, the petitioners have rushed to this Court by filing this writ petition as at present, practically they have become remediless so far as the efficacious statutory remedy is concerned. (3) Admittedly, there are efficacious statutory reraedies against the impugned order dated 13.01.2010 and the auction notice dated 12.02.2010. Counsel for the pedtioners has also not disputed the said legal position. The reason for coming to the writ Court is only on account of the said strike called by the local bar association abstaining from DRT. Only on account of members of the local bar association abstaining from DRT, consumers of justice cannot be held to be reraediless. In such a situation, we have experience that the lawyers from other places or the parties aggrieved frequently appear before the Court to carry on its business and dispensation of justice never stops for such petty reasons. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case that alone would not be a ground for entertaining the writ petidon when appropriate efficacious statutoiy remedies are available to the petitioners. (4) For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to admit this petition for hearing. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to exhaust their remedies before the statutoiy authorities in accordance with law by filing appropriate applicadons for grant of relief(s) as also the interim. relief claimed against the auction proposed to be held on 8th of March, 2010. \d^ (5) No cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge