Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kausar Tanveer vs The Authorised Officer Cum Branch ... on 20 September, 2024
APHC010408872024 Bench Sr.No:-7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3483]
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 20809 of 2024
Kausar Tanveer and another ...Petitioners
Vs.
The Authorized Officer Cum Branch Manager,
Canara Bank, SME Branch, Auto Nagar Branch,
...Respondents
Vijayawada and another.
**********
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. Prudvi Raju Mudunuri.
Counsel for the respondents : None.
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 20th September, 2024
PC:
The petitioners filed the present petition challenging the sale notice,
dated 20.08.2024, issued by respondent No.1 with a view to sell the property
which the respondent No.1 claims to be a secured asset on account of loan
having been advanced to respondent No.2.
2. The property, it is stated, earlier belonged to the petitioners and
was sold to respondent No.2 herein. A sale deed, it is stated, was executed
by the petitioners in favour of respondent No.2, on 03.06.2023, and part
consideration received. It is stated that on account of failure of respondent
HCJ & RC,J
WP_20809_2024
No.2 to pay the entire sale consideration, the petitioners filed a civil suit on
06.05.2024 which is pending adjudication before a civil Court in Vijayawada.
The petitioners do not claim any knowledge about the date of the issuance of
notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the
SARFAESI Act'].
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone
through the relevant record.
4. In our opinion, the petitioners claim a right to recover the balance
amount of sale consideration which remains unpaid by respondent No.2 to the
petitioners. While a civil suit is no doubt pending before the civil Court of
competent jurisdiction in Vijayawada, we are of the opinion that the petitioners
cannot invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in the present case, in view of
the fact that they have an equally efficacious alternate remedy available in
terms of the provisions of Section 17(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
5. Needless to say that the Apex Court in Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of H.P., 1 had reiterated the principle that when an
alternate remedy was available to a person, the resort to extra-ordinary writ
jurisdiction was not permitted unless the Court was satisfied that the case of
(2021) 6 SCC 771
HCJ & RC,J
WP_20809_2024
the petitioner fell within any of the exceptions which had been crystallized by
the Apex Court as under:-
"27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where:
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a
fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has
been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a
legislation is challenged."
6. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to satisfy us that
their case falls under any of the four exceptions carved out in the aforesaid
judgment.
7. Be that as it may, we find no merit in the present Writ Petition,
which is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
Vjl
