HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH,_BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 966 [2010 ~ PETITIONER ' Syed Nadeem Ali, s/o Shri Asgar Ali, aged a‘boutv 33 years, r/o HoUse No.276, Kelabadi, infront of Anna Kirana Store, behind Noori Masjid, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Vs. RESPONDENTS Authoriged Ofticer—cum—Chief Manager, Andhr‘a Bank, Bhilai Branch, Civic Qentre, _ District Durg, Chhattisgarh (C.G). ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, counsel fdr the p'etitioner. , ORAL ORDER ' r (05.03.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, 'Heard. Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same subject matter, the petitioner has filed 7 S.A.'No.361/2010 befbre the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur and there is no dispute that petitioner has availed the statutory remedy available to him under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement ’of Security Interest Act, 2002. - However, he submits that since the proceedings in the said matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) are not taking place as‘the members of the DRT Bar Association have unanimously resolved to abstain from DRT including the Registrar and RecOver‘y Officers by resolution dated 21.01.2010, therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2 Admittedly, there is an efflcacious statutory remedy available‘tt) the petitioner and the petitioner has already availed the remedy. The reason for comingito the Writ Court isxonly on account of the said strike called by the Local Bar Association abstaining from ljRT. Only on account of members of the Local Bar Association abstaining from DRT, Consumers of‘justice cannotbe held to be remediless. In such a _situation,~ we have‘experience that the lawyers from other places or t '4 v ‘ Writ Petition (C). No..966/2o10 ‘ ’the parties aggrieved frequentlyx‘appear before the Court to carry on its business and dispensation of justice never stopskfor such petty reasons. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case that alone would not be a ground for entertaining the writ petition when appropriate efficacious statutory remedy is available to ‘1 7 ‘r t the petitioner. I r ts _ V r Vi p r For the foregoingreasons, I am not inclined: to admitthis _ petitionlfo'r hearing] The petition is liable to be dismissed and is / hereby dismissed summarily. However the petitioner would be at E i‘ v I liberty to exhaust his remedies‘before the statutory authbrities in accordance w1th law. i sd/- , ’ 3 UE KUMAR SWHA ‘ i _ i} No cost. SN Jenn/)4