Allahabad High Court: A civil writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Ram Surat Ram Maurya, J., on the ground that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.
The petitioner filed the instant petition being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank under SARFAESI Act, whereunder the petitioner’s account was declared as ‘non-performing account’ and his property was auctioned. The petitioner claimed that the proceedings against him were malafide and he was being wrongly deprived of his property in a high-handedness manner. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner submitted that if he was to file an appeal under the Act, he will have to submit 35% of the outstanding amount and he was not in a condition to deposit the same.
The High Court gave due consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also adverted to a Supreme Court decision cited by the respondent wherein the Court deprecated the practice of the High Courts to entertain a writ petition, ignoring the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. The High Court was of the view that it is well settled that writ jurisdiction has to be exercised according to the provisions of law and not bypassing the provisions of law. If the legislature imposed a condition for entertaining the appeal, to deposit 35% of the amount, then the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, should not ignore that condition.
Since the appellant had equal efficacious remedy of appeal under the SARFAESI Act, the Court dismissed the petition. [Anil Kumar Sharma v. Punjab National Bank, 2018 SCC OnLine All 146, order dated 08-02-2108]