M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. The Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.416 of 2015 ====================================================== M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telecom District Saharsa through its Accounts Officer, Jayant Kumar, Son of Late R.S.P. Singh, resident of Telecom District Manager Campus, Gandhi Path, P.S. Saharsa, DistrictSaharsa. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagalpur .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the EPFO : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-06-2017 In view of availability of equally efficacious statutory remedy to the petitioner for the redressal of his grievance under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as also in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of United Bank Of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. [2010 (8) SCC 110], wherein the Supreme Court observed: "... we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five

Patna High Court CWJC No.416 of 2015 (7) dt.29-06-2017 2/3 prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of selfimposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc.

and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance....It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues.

Patna High Court CWJC No.416 of 2015 (7) dt.29-06-2017 3/3 greater caution, care and circumspection.", I am not inclined to entertain this application. It is dismissed, accordingly. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/- U