--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 7020 / 2011 NEW TECH PIPES LTD., Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER * * * * * O R D E R ( 27/8/2011) The petitioner Company before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action initiated by the State Bank of India under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, claiming the following reliefs : a) To allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ, direction or order, and quash the impugned notice / communication dated 19/8/2011 (Annexure P/4) with cost. b) To direct the competent authority to decide the representation dated 17/2/2011 (Annexure P/2) after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. c) any other relief which this court may deem fit in the interest of --- 2 --- justice. The contention of the petitioner is that a notice was issued u/S. 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 22/12/2010 and the petitioner Company has submitted a detailed and exhaustive reply on 17/2/11. However, no order has been passed in the matter and therefore as the petitioner Company has submitted a representation for one time settlement, proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the order dt. 19/8/11 for handing over the possession deserves to be quashed. Petitioner has also raised various other grounds before this Court. However, learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India, at the outset, has argued before this Court that the petitioner is having a remedy of preferring an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if he is aggrieved by the action of the respondent Bank initiated under Sec. 13 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, --- 3 --- 2002 and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Company as well as respondent Bank on the question of admission and perused the record. In the present case, the petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the action initiated by the respondent Bank under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is true that the petitioner has submitted a representation requesting the Bank for accepting one time settlement but the fact remains that proceedings are pending under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 in para 44, 45 and 46 has held as under : 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five --- 4 --- prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and / or its agencies / instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies / institutions, which (sic will) --- 5 --- ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order. The apex court in the aforesaid case has exhaustively dealt with the availability of alternative remedy and exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore as an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner Company to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the question of entertaining the present writ petition in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. The admission is declined. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR