Matter is taken up through video conferencing.
Shri Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Shri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel appears for the respondent Bank.
Petitioner by way of present petition seeks following relief:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Varanasi under section 14 of SARFEASI Act, 2002 in Suit/Case No. 05727 of 2019 (Computer case No.-D201914700005727) AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK Versus M/s FIBROIN WEAVE INDIA PVT. LTD. & others. (ANNEXURE No. -1) II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing to the learned court below to decide the Partition suit/Civil suit being Suit No.- 532 of 2019, Raj Nath Prasad Versus Indian Bank & others pending before LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) VARANASI, DISTRICT VARANASI (UTTAR PRASDESH) within the time bound by the Hon'ble Court and till than Respondent Bank not to proceed against the disputed property in question."
In respect of relief no.I, the petitioner has a remedy against the order passed under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the 'SARFAESI Act') to file an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, as held in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 wherein their Lordships were pleased to observe:
"42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 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 the 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 pas 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 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 of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the 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."
In view whereof, we are not inclined to entertain the relief no. I.
As to relief no. II, the petitioner is set at liberty to move an appropriate application before the court concerned who shall consider the same on its own merit and decide it. For that we have not expressed any opinion.
With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.4.2021 Kirti (Prakash Padia, J) (Sanjay Yadav, ACJ)