Cg wz ” /Q IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PET1T10N(C) No q (5% ,/201o SURENDRA PRASAD SAH . vS/O Late Shri. B.N.Sah Aged about 47 Years, House N0. 18, Sagardeep Enclave, Mungeli Road, Near Uslapur Rly. Crossing, (P0) Uslapur', BILASPUR (CG) > ’R PETITIONE 1. CENT BANK HOME FINANCE LIMITED, (A subsidiary of Central Bank of India) hrough : The Branch Manager,- Cent Bank Home Finance Limited, Gandhi Chowk, Near Laxmi Talkies, . Juna, BILASPUR - 495001 (Chhattisgarh) The Regional Manager; CENTRAL BANK ‘OF INDIA, egional Office, SHAHDOL (M.P.) R Smt. Boondi Bai W/o Late Jageshwar Yadav, Aged about 74 Years Agriculturist WO Mungeli Road Near AJ anta Saw M1Tl BILASPUR (CG) M/s Surya Builders & Promoters, Through : Its Proprietor-Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri. Mansharam hu, Residing at : Kali Mandir, Tifra, BILASPUR (CG) Sa Mr. Melaram Koshle, S/o Shri. Sunderlal Koshle, Aged about 48 Years Government Servant Res1dent at Near Torwa Naka Chowk BILASPUR (CG) T RESPONDENTS /6. Mr. Nizamuddin I v . . _ 3 S/o Shri. Niyajuddin, ‘ , " . ‘ Aged about 39 Years, 3 Employed as Assistant Teacher, R/o 2 In from of State Bank of Indiai ’ ‘ Tifra,'BILASPUR (CG) 1/7. The sob-Registrar, Registrar Office, ‘ I , ‘ I ‘ \ BILASPUR (CG) ‘ 'WRII PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226' OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - I \ ’2r 9% previous owner and is in possession since last s0 many years. According t0 learned counsel there is no out standing amount against the petitioner, therefore issuance of warrant of possession Withou arraying the petitioner as party is iilegai. (4) In the matter of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon am! others decided on 26m July, 2010 the Supreme Court has held thus in paragraph 17 ofthe report: ”There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No.1 had any tangible grievance against 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 person’ used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes Within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may he affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section l4. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule; It is thus evident that the remedies available to an 1‘ r aggrieved person. under the SARFAESI 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 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 t the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the t action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High t l Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code untor themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recoveiy 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 relevant statute”. {5) In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the availability of the alternative 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 of India. (6) The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Law/ /” i K / 4 s¢ll‘ r M‘sxwé prashantjudge K“ma OVA / s