1- a^- ^•^1 BEFORE THEHONOURABLE HI&H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR C.6. LO.P-Cc;Mo.'<<^./^( PETETIONERS:- f^ ^ Su.,-^ ^r^y 0-Sf" /s^/ ^^ .^-'^•^ ^,^ <y'- 1.5mt.Bhanumati Kunjam wd/o Late Ghanshyam Kunjam aged<i»years r/o 61/665 Shanti Bhavan near marriage place Pushpaknagar Junwani road Bhilai Tah.A Distt. Ourg C.G. -2.Kuman Mansi d/o late Ghanshyam singh Kunjam aged 8 years. S.kuman Manisha Kunjam d/o Late Shanshyam Kunjam aged 4 years. pLh-+pne»'^d2^3»'»c-eeth<.throuqhher mother smt. (9 Bhanumati Kunjam Wd/o late Ghanshyam singh Kunjam as natural guardian r/o r/o 61/665 Shanti Bhavan near marriage place Pushpaknagar Junwani road Bhilai Tah.&Distt. Durg c.e. RESPONDENTS:- 1 ^' /\uthen'sed officer Housing development Finance corporation Ltd. Chawaia complex Raipur(C.G T>\sJ^^ Hciy\s+yaJle-/ Call.e-cJ^nr ^^ C-GU ^ ^- o WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTECLE 226.227 THE CONTITUTION OF INblA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MAN&AMUS.CERTEORARI AND OTHER WRIT/WRITS.ORDER/ORbER <& OIRECTIONS ETC, ^'' ..s"* "'%. S & .<.-3!'-». % 1 siN£»aag HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2271 OF 2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Smt. Bhanumati Kunjam & Others Versus Authorised Officer & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Arvind Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 25th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 3-11-2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Durg, in case No.34/B/121 year 2009-10 (Authorised Officer v. Smt. Damini Kunjam}. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is the wife and the petitioners No.2 & 3 are the daughters of Ghanshyam Singh Kunjam (since deceased), who died on 20-1-2008. While the deceased working in the Bhilai Steel Plant, obtained an amount of Rs.18,00,0007- loan for construction of house in dispute. However, after the death of the deceased, according to the petitioners, one Damini Kunjam impersonated hersetf as the wife of the deceased, obtained the death-cum-retiral dues of the deceased from the BSP. 4. In the meanwhile, the respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings by filing an application before the respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act, 2002") in which the respondent No.2 issued notice in the name of Damini Kunjam in spite of the fact that she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased and even she is not residing in the house in dispute. For the said notice, Damini has not respondent, therefore, the respondents threatened the petitioners to vacate the house in dispute in an illegal and arbitrary manner and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit. Thus, this petition. 5. The Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others observed 'as under: "22. We are in respectful agreement with the above enunciation of law on the point. It is manifest that an actfon under. Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4), and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of Section 17(1)af the Act. Thus, the Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an action under Section 13(4) of the Act, by providing for an appeal before the DRT." 6. The Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ofhers , observed as under: "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and otherfinancial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions 4 . involving challenge to the action taken for - " , . recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves 1 (2011)28cc782 2 (2010)83cc 110 '^ 8. inasmuch as they not only contain 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 Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the rejevant statute. 55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." This Court, in M/s. Stallion Steels Indore Pvt. Ltd. v. I.D.B.I. Bank3, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev (supra) dismissed the petition holding that since appeal under the provisions of section 17 of the Act was available, no interference was warranted. Identical issue raised in this petition also came into consideration before this Court in Ind Synergy Limited & Another v. The Authorised Officer & Others . This Court, having considered the issue at length, held as under: "9. In view of the well settled principle of law that the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 2002 is available to the petitioners and, as such, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India." 3 W.P.(C) No. 2339 of 2011, decided on 03.08.2011 4 W.P.(C) No. 2960 of 2011, decided on 22.06.2011 Gowri Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, the petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy, if so advised, which may be available to the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, 2002. No order asto costs. ~————_.___ Sd/- isatlshK.Agml