Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18972 of 2019 Petitioner :- Nirmal Rice Mill Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Tohers Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Mishra,Vaibhav Tripathi
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Puri, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Bank-respondent no.4.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and for quashing of the alleged recovery proceedings as well as the attachment proceedings issued against the petitioner as well as further direction upon the respondents to release the rice mill in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
Record reveals that the petitioner was sanctioned loan of Rs. 23,75,000/- on 28.3.2011 for setting up a Rice Mill, and when the said loan could not be deposited in time, the said loan become NPA, thereafter, borrower approached for OTS, which was sanctioned for an offer amount of Rs. 23,75,000/- against total dues of Rs, 29,06,000/- on 7.10.2015. Pursuant to which petitioner is said to have deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- on 20.11.2015 within prescribed period of OTS but did not honour the full and final amount of OTS, thereafter the OTS was cancelled automatically. The petitioner is said to have again approached the bank for OTS on 7.9.2018 whereafter an offer amount of Rs. 16,50,000/- was sanctioned under the OTS and pursuant to which petitioner deposited Rs, 16,5000/- on 7.9.2018 within time and thereafter failed to deposit the full amount of OTS. Thereafter proceedings for recovery and attachment were initiated by the Bank in accordance with law.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent bank has illegally attached the rice mill of the petitioner without providing him any opportunity of hearing against the notice/recovery certificate issued against petitioner.
Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for the Bank has stated that twice the petitioner was offered for one time settlement, but he failed to honour the same, therefore, the recovery certificate has been issued for recovery of the amount, which is outstanding against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the account was declared as non-performing asset and proceedings under SARFAESI Act were initiated and once measures under SARFAESI Act have been taken, the petitioner ought to be relegated to avail the alternative remedy as provided under the SARFAESI Act and this Court may not entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, we are of the view that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed reserving the right of the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy as provided under the SARFAESI Act by raising all the grounds available to the petitioner.
In view of above, we find, in this case, no justification for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Vivek Varma, J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.) Order Date :- 11.6.2019 Ajeet