K.Pandiarajan, v. The General Manager,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2022 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI W.P.NO.3727 OF 2022 AND W.M.P.NOS.3879 & 3882 OF 2022 K.Pandiarajan .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Chairman, Indian Bank Head Office, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai.
3. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Virudhunagar Branch.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to the impugned auction notice dated 10.01.2022 for auction sale passed by the 3rd respondent in so far as the property of the petitioner family as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit subsequently direct the 2nd respondent to take immediate action on the representation dated 15.02.2022.
For Petitioner :
Mr.K.Suresh Babu for M/s.N.Vijayaraj
O R D E R
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY M.DURAISWAMY, J.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to the impugned auction notice dated 10.01.2022 for auction sale passed by the 3rd respondent in so far as the property of the petitioner family as illegal and to quash the same and subsequently to direct the 2nd respondent to take immediate action on the representation dated 15.02.2022. 2.The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the remedy available to him under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 3.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 and Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs.
Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626 held that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge the SARFAESI proceedings directly by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the appeal remedy available to them.
4.In the decision of the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Limited v. Umakanta Mohapatra, reported in (2019) 13 Supreme Court Cases 497, the Supreme Court has referred to the decision in Mathew K.C. case, referred supra, and has observed that despite several judgments, including the decision of Mathew K.C., cited supra, the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the SARFAESI Act and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets. Further, the Supreme Court held that Writ Petition filed by the aggrieved party without exhausting the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, is not maintainable.
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgments referred above, held that a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the aggrieved party challenging the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act is not maintainable. 6.Since the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition without exhausting the alternate remedy available to him under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited supra, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va To
1. The General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Chairman, Indian Bank Head Office, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai.
3. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Virudhunagar Branch.
W.P.No.3727 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.3879 & 3882 of 2022 AD(CO) RLP(08/03/2022)