AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.
This petition is directed against the order dated 10.7.2014 (Annexure P/1). Learned senior counsel fairly submits that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal but the Tribunal is not functional. Hence, this petition be entertained.
It is gathered that although no regular Presiding Officer is working in concerned Tribunal but some arrangement has been made for urgent matters.
Considering the aforesaid, in my opinion, petitioner is not remedyless. Urgent matters are being filed and entertained by the Tribunal. The Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, opined as under:-
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 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.
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.
It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.
In view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy available under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioners shall file appropriate proceedings within ten days from today.
Till next ten days, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners pursuant to Annexure P-1.
Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merit.