IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NOS.2739-2741 OF 2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
OMEGA BIOTEC REP. BY PROPRIETOR J.H.PRASANNA KUMAR AGED 52 YEARS NO.56, 3RD CROSS KUMAR LAYOUT TALAGHATTAPURA KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE – 560062 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B-006, AMITY HARMONY APTS. SHASHIDHARA LAYOUT DWARAKA NAGAR CHANNASANDRA BANGALORE - 560098 ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI J. H. PRASANNA KUMAR, PARTRY-IN-PERSON) AND:
1. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE MAIN BRANCH NO.11, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560009 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF INDIA BANGALORE MAIN BRANCH NO.11, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560009 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE SUVARNA COOP. BANK LTD. # 62, SANJEEVAPPA LANE AVENUE ROAD BANGALORE - 560002 4. SRI C.A.BOPAIAH (MAJOR) NO.36, RAGA NIVAS MEENAKSHI RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT KEMBATHAHALLI ROAD GOTTIGERE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560083 5. SMT. HEMA M. T. (MAJOR) NO.36, RAGA NIVAS MEENAKSHI RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT KEMBATHAHALLI ROAD GOTTIGERE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560083 6. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA BANGALORE CITY BRANCH SANTOSH COMPLEX K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560009 7. V. SHIVAPRAKASH (MAJOR) S/O VAJRAVELU S NO.311, H.N.NAYAK MAIN ROAD JAI MARUTHI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560096 ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF SINGLE BENCH DATED 17/06/2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.20059 & 24649-24680/2019 [GM- DRT] AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the appellant, appearing in person.
2. The appellant filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘the DRT’). By the said order, the DRT rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the Original Application.
3. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the petition filed by the appellant on two grounds. The first ground is that it was the contention of the appellant that certain arguments canvassed by him before the DRT were not considered and incorrect information was supplied by the respondents behind his back. The learned Single Judge has observed that if that be so, the applicant can file an appropriate application before the DRT. The second ground on which the writ petition was not entertained is that a remedy under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the said Act’) is available.
4. The appellant firstly submits that his fundamental rights have been violated. Secondly, he submitted that it is a settled law that notwithstanding the availability of a statutory remedy, the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. Thirdly, he submitted that as per a decision of the Full Bench, a writ petition can be entertained though a remedy is available under the said Act. Fourthly, he submitted that he does not have money to approach the DRAT.
5. We have considered the submissions. By the order impugned in the writ petition, the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the Original Application has been rejected. The question is whether sufficient cause was made out by the appellant. This factual issue can be more conveniently looked into by the Appellate Authority constituted under the said Act. It is true that notwithstanding the availability of the statutory remedy, a writ Court can exercise discretion and entertain a writ petition.
But in the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly declined exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the availability of an efficacious remedy of filing an appeal. Moreover, he has kept open the remedy of the appellant to apply for review.
6. Hence, we find no error in the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge. By keeping open the remedy of the appellant, we dismiss the appeals.
7. The learned Single Judge had granted time of two weeks to file an application seeking review. To enable the appellant to do so, the said time is extended for a period of three weeks from today.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN