Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11180 of 2021 Petitioner :- Hariom Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yashwant Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The matter is taken up through video conferencing.
Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4.
Petitioner by way of present petition seeks quashment of notice under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 dated 18.08.2020 issued by respondent nos.3 and 4.
Evident it is that the notice is being issued because of failure on the part of the petitioner in depositing the loan amount.
In our considered opinion and has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 wherein in paragraph 42 and 43 it is held:
"42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No.1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression `any person' used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.
43.Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that 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. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are 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 of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute."
At this stage learned counsel appearing for respondent Bank submits that in furtherance to said notice the property in question has already been auctioned and auction purchaser has not been impleaded as a party.
Be that as it may, as the petitioner has remedy under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, we are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 28.4.2021 N Tiwari (Prakash Padia,J.) (Sanjay Yadav,A.C.J.)