Central Bank Of India v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.01.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P.[MD].No.935 of 2017 Central Bank of India, Represented by its Authorized Officer, Kovilpatti Branch, Main Road, Kovilpatti 628 501, Tuticorin District.

: Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District.

2.M/s.V.Velumani & Co, Represented by its Partner Mr.V.Kaliraj, 14/1, Daily Market, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. 3.V.Kalirajan 4.V.Thirupathi Venkatesan 5.V.Saravanakumar 6.V.Rameshkumar 7.S.Haribalagan : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petition given by this petitioner on 11.11.2016, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which is pending as Na.Ka.C4/27385/16, on the file of the first respondent, within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.] This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petition given by this petitioner on 11.11.2016, under Section 14 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which is pending as Na.Ka.C4/27385/16, on the file of the first respondent, within a stipulated time.

2. Though several contentions have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider the petition submitted by him under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and pass orders, within a stipulated time.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that on the petition filed by the petitioner, certain queries were raised by the first respondent and if such queries are answered, the same would be considered, for which the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the queries pointed out by the first respondent had already been rectified by the petitioner.

4. In view of the said submission made on either side, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petition submitted by the petitioner dated 11.11.2016, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the case and it is for the first respondent to consider the petition filed by the petitioner independently and decide the issue. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District District Collector, Tuticorin District.

+1cc to Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan, Advocate SR.No.3301 NB sm:skn:SAR 3:20/01/2017:2P/3C ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD].No.935 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/