Rajeshwar Singh v. Punjab National Bank And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14801 of 2009 ====================================================== Rajeshwar Singh S/O Shri Kedar Nath Singh, R/O Kanta Brick Field, Makhla, Uttarpara, Distt.- Hooghly (West Bengal) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Boring Road Branch, Patna through its Authorised Officer, A.R.K. Prasad

2. A.R.K. Prasad, Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Boring Road Branch, Patna

3. M/S K.C. Traders through its Proprietor Kedar Nath Singh S/O Late Jagdambh Pd. Singh M/S Bajrang Cold Storage, Nasariganj, Digha, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None. For the Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No.1 Mrs. Kumari Rashmi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-02-2015 The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, for the State of Bihar, at Patna, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In compliance of the order dated 06.11.2009, a counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank controverting the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner. This matter was listed yesterday (03.02.2015) for its final disposal, but despite repeated calls, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Hence, by oral order, the matter was passed over for the day. When this matter has been called out once again today for its final disposal, none appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, despite repeated calls. However, Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No.1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and 2, is present and has been heard.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14801 of 2009 (3) dt.04-02-2015 2/2 the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted his alternative and efficacious remedy available to him in terms of Section 18 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (In short "SARFAESI Act").

The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned judgment by the learned Tribunal by holding therein that the petitioner is neither borrower nor the guarantor and has not executed any document with the Bank. Therefore, he had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Admittedly, the impugned judgment and order is appealable in terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The issues of facts raised on behalf of the parties are required to be conclusively decided by the statutory authorities/ bodies. Only thereafter the orders passed by such authorities/ bodies can be tested in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the present case, the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner with respect to the issues of facts has not been exhausted by him and he has directly come to this Court in the present proceeding. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.