Painty Suresh, v. Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI WRIT PETITION No.13048 OF 2018 Date:16.04.2018 Between:

Painty Suresh S/ o.P.Mareppa and another ... Petitioners Vs.

Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary, Sastry, Bhavan, New Delhi and others .. Respondents For Petitioners : Mr.R.Siva SaiSwaroop For Respondents : Sri K.Lakhsman, Asst.Solicitor General Sri M.Srikanth Reddy Gist :

Head Note :

Cases Referred : Nil

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI WRIT PETITION No.13048 OF 2018 ORDER: (per Just ice V. Ramasubramanian) Challenging an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitization Act and the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal confirming the same, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petition.

2. Heard Mr.R.Siva Sai Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.M.Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents.

3. The demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 05.7.2014. The possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 12.09.2014. Thereafter, an application under Section 14 of the Act was made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool in Crl.M.P.No.116 of 2014. It was allowed on 21.11.2014.

4. Challenging the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, the petitioners filed an appeal in SA No.1160 of 2017. By an order dated 28.02.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the said appeal. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petition challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

5. The Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are two fold, namely, (a) that the ingredients of Clauses (i) to (ix) of Subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Act are not satisfied, in the sense that the affidavit filed by the Bank was a very vague affidavit not containing

any particulars and (b) that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not empowered to pass orders.

6. It is seen that the second question is pending consideration before the Supreme Court, in a batch of cases. A full bench of this Court has already made this position clear.

7. On the first question, since the petitioners want the Authorized Officer as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate to go by the letter of the law, it is equally the duty of the petitioners to go by the letter of law by filing an appropriate appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal as against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

8. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal, this writ petition is dismissed.

10. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ____________ J. UMA DEVI, J April 16, 2018 Note:

Furnish CC by tomorrow.

B/o.KTL