SBCWP 1439/2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R M/s.Arihant Suitings V/s. The Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur and ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1439/2008 Date of Order : 18/02/2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri V.L. Mathur for the petitioner. ****** BY THE COURT:- The writ petition has been filed challenging the notice of the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur dated 24/1/2008 (Ann.14). The notice has been issued in the purported compliance of the D.R.T. dated 5/8/2005 (Ann.1). Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the Instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, a settlement was arrived at between the parties in the year 2004 pursuant to which, the respondent-Bank vide communication issued some time in July 2004 (Ann.2) required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.24,06,411.21. The petitioner vide communication dated 15/7/2004 (Ann.3) conveyed to the respondents that he would make payment of Rs.26,000/- by 15/7/2004, Rs.5,80,000/- by 15/9/2004 and Rs.18,00,000/- by SBCWP 1439/2008 2 31/12/2004. However, the petitioner did not fulfill his own commitment and instead, approached this Court by filing a writ petition on the same subject-matter which was disposed of by the Court on 1/6/2006 on petitioner's submitting that he wishes to avail of the benefit of 'one time settlement scheme'. It was therefore the court in the said order observed that the respondents were expected to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the instructions of the R.B.I. However, when the new settlement could not be arrived at, petitioner has filed this fresh writ petition challenging the recovery notice dated 24/1/2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he submitted number of representations but so far no action has been taken by the respondents as yet. In fact, copy of the order of this court was also forwarded to the respondents, they are however, still insisting for recovery. This Court having once granted the liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents while not entertaining the earlier writ petition on the same subject-matter, another writ petition cannot be entertained on the same subject- matter more particularly when impunged notice dated 24/1/2008 has been issued in purported compliance of the judgment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 5/8/2005. The judgment of the Tribunal is not under challenge in the present writ petition and in any case, SBCWP 1439/2008 3 that remedy is available to the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner may pursue the remedy either before the respondent-Bank or before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal either for settling the accounts of the bank or questioning the correctness of judgment of Tribunal by filing the appeal against the judgment. This Court cannot in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a positive direction require the respondents to arrive at a settlement with the petitioner more particularly when he himself failed to abide by the terms of the settlement that was reached between the parties. The writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil