IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE W.P. NOs.45903-45904 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/S DEVI PETRO SERVICES SY.NO.201, N.S.ROAD CHELUR, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DIST – 572 117 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRITRIX SMT.M.S.NIRMALA DEVI W/O HALEGOWDA 2. M/S DEVI AUTOMOBILES OPP. BANK OF MAHARASTRA BG PALYA CIRCLE, BH ROAD TUMKUR – 572 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.MALLIKARJUNA A S/O HALEGOWDA (By Mr.Y.D.SOMASHEKARAIAH ADV.) AND:
1. THE DY. COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TUMKUR DIST.
TUMKUR – 572 101.
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA 1ST FLOOR, VOKKALIGARA SANGA COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101.
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER … PETITIONERS STATE BANK OF INDIA 1ST FLOOR, VOKKALIGARA SANGA COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101.
4. THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA NET WORK – II LOCAL HEAD OFFICE ST.MARKS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
5. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INIDA SIDDAGANGA BRANCH TUMKUR – 572 102.
6. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LVO 170, VANIJYA TEREGE SANKERNA SIDDARAMESWARA EXTENSION JAYANAGARA EAST TUMKUR – 572 103.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr.Y.D.HARSHA AGA FOR R1 MR.B.N.TULSI KUMAR ADV. FOR R2 TO R5) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 27.09.2018 AND 04.10.2018 TO REVIEW THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT FOR RS.25 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.42,50,000/- UNDER ANNEXURE-D AND 3 RESPECTIVELY THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.R.P.Somashekaraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.B.N.Tulasi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 2, 4 & 5.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation dated 27.09.2018 & 04.10.2018 to review one time settlement for Rs.25,00,000/- as against a sum of Rs.42,50,000/-. The petitioners also seek a direction to respondent No.5 to release the pension amount of the petitioner No.1.
4. Admittedly, during the pendency of the writ petitions, the proceeding under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) initiated against the petitioners. It is also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have the remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. However, he submits that petitioners be granted the liberty to submit a fresh representation and the competent authority- Respondent-Bank be directed to consider and decide the representation, which may be submitted by the petitioners afresh. It is also prayed that till decision is taken on the representation, the auction sale, which is scheduled to be held today i.e., 30.01.2019 be deferred. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that pension amount of petitioner No.1 has already been released. It is also submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioners for reviewing the amount under one time settlement scheme has already been rejected. However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in case petitioners submit a fresh representation, the same shall be dealt in accordance with law.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitions with a liberty to the petitioners to make a representation before the Tribunal within a period of three days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that the competent authority, respondent-bank decide the same within a further period of three days from the date of receipt of such an representation. Since the auction sale is scheduled to be held today i.e., 30.01.2019 and an interest in favour of third party is likely to be created. Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, I am not inclined to defer the auction sale. Needless to state that the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail off such remedy as may be available to them under the law.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS