1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated::10.03.2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Petition (MD)No.2770 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 P. Anusuya, W/o. Ponnusamy, Nadu Vaikolkara Street, Woraiyur, Trichy - 3. ..... Petitioner - Vs - 1. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trissur, Represented by its Branch Manager, B 35, Sastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy - 18. 2. The Ashtalakshmi Textiles, Represented by its Managing Director B. Rajalakshmi, W/o. Balasubramanian, No.1 B/6, Double Mal Street, Malaivasal, Trichy. 3. C. Arumugam, S/o. Late Chellaperumal, 1 B /1, Anbu Nagar, Anbu Nagar Main Road, Alwar Thirunagar, Chennai - 600 087. 4. R. Thiyagarajan, S/o. Rajagopal, 41, Pattabiraman Street, Tennur, Trichy - 17. ......Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the notice of the first respondent bank dated 05.02.2010 under Section 13(4) of the SARFASI Act and quash the notice and all further proceedings subsequent to the notice as illegal and direct the respondents to hand over the possession of the petitioners property auctioned by the first respondent. For Petitioner :: Mr. Muthukrishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R (Order of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:- "..... to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the notice of the first respondent bank dated 05.02.2010 under Section 13(4) of the SARFASI Act and quash the notice and all further proceedings subsequent to the notice as illegal and direct the respondents to hand over the possession of the petitioners property auctioned by the first respondent and pass such other relief the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper .....". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly admits that an alternative statutory remedy is available. But, it is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner since the order under challenge is prima facie illegal, the petitioner has come by way of this writ petition. 3. Though the order is prima facie illegal, it may be a good ground for the petitioner to agitate before the other statutory forum available. On this ground, the petitioner cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternative remedy available, especially when the respondent bank is a private bank. 4. Now, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since auction is scheduled to be held on 15.03.2011, he cannot immediately approach the alternative forum also. 5. In view of the above, the respondents herein are restrained from taking any further action in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 05.02.2010 for a period of one week from today and a period of one week from today is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. 6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed. Dpn/- Sd/- Deputy Registrar[LA] /True copy/ To Assistant Registrar The Branch Manager, Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trissur, B 35, Sastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy - 18. +1 cc to Mr.J.Madhu, Advocate SR.No.5897. W.P.(MD)No.2770 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 2P/3C DATED:10.03.2011 RPB 11.03.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/