IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NOS.32951/2019 & 33063/2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. AMARAYYA MUDDAIAH HIREMATH S/O MUDDAIAH HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS H.NO.4-74/15, LAKSHMI NAGAR SHAHAPUR TOWN, YADGIR DISTRICT.
2. SRI. MUDDAIAH AMARAYYA HIREMATH S/O AMARAYYA MUDDAIAH HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS H.NO.4-74/15, LAKSHMI NAGAR SHAHAPUR TOWN, YADGIR DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. M.V.N. RAMANA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK, SHAHPUR BRANCH CMC COMPOUND, SHAHPUR YADGIR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI CHALLENGING ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY, TRIBUNAL II KARANTAKA AT BANGALORE PASSED IN S.A. NO.259/2019 DATED:26.07.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners, who are debtors, are before this Court calling in question order dated 26.07.2019 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal on I.A.No.1640/2019 (in SA No.259/2019), which is an appealable order under Section 18 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. As such without exhausting available alternate remedy, petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. This Court and Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments have repeatedly held where there is efficacious and alternate remedy available to the litigant the Constitutional Courts would refrain from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction so vested in it.
In the case of AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER vs. MATHEW K.C.
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the position of law stated in SATYAWATHI TANDON’s case. Hence, question of considering prayer No.(i) does not arise.
3. Insofar as prayer No.(ii) which relates to non-consideration of representation dated 20.07.2019–Annexure-D said to have been submitted by petitioner to respondent/Bank, Sri. M.V.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for petitioner was unable to demonstrate before this Court as to the statutory obligation cast on respondent-Bank to consider the representation and its failure, which would be the sole criteria for issuing writ of mandamus by this Court.
4. In the absence of any statutory duty cast on respondent to consider such representation, writ of mandamus cannot be issued. However, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot doubt as to why representation submitted by petitioner would not be considered by the respondent/Bank, if not already considered.
With this observation, writ petitions stand rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR