Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Cases related to recovery of dues of banks and auction sale – Exercise of power u/Art 226 by filing writ petition, in spite of availability of an alternative remedy – Maintainability of the writ petition:
Held: Ordinarily the High Court would not entertain a petition u/Art.
226 if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person – This rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions – While dealing with such petitions, the High Court must keep in mind that the statutes enacted for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance – Though the powers of the High Court u/Art. 226 are of widest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint – On facts, the High Courts entertained petitions arising out of the DRT and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy – High Court interfered with the writ petition only on the ground that the matter was pending for sometime before it and if the petition not entertained, the Borrower would be left remediless – However the High Court failed to take into consideration the conduct of the Borrower – Though the High Court was specifically informed that, on account of confirmation of sale and registration thereof, the position had reached an irreversible stage, the High Court failed to consider that aspect – High Court ought to have taken into consideration that the confirmed auction sale could have been interfered with only when there was a fraud or collusion, which was not a case – Effect of the order of the High Court would be again reopening the issues which attained finality – Also instant case would not come under any of the exceptions – Thus, the High Court grossly erred in entertaining the petition – Impugned order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside – Costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed upon the Borrower – Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. [Paras 15, 24, 26, 32, 34]
Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Exceptions, when a petition u/Art. 226 could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy: Held: It is when the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice [Para 29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.