Arun Kumar Jain & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 5851 Del

$~12.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 10685/2016       &    C.M.No.7669/2017,      12705/2017        &
       43019/2017
%                                   Date of Decision: 26th September, 2018

       ARUN KUMAR JAIN & ORS                    ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr.Anish Jain, petitioner No.3.
               Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                        ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr.Anil      Dabas,         Adv.    with
                     Mr.Praveen Kumar, Adv. for R-1/UOI.
                     Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. for R-3.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
                         JUDGMENT

Rajendra Menon, Chief Justice (Oral):

1. Challenge in this writ petition is made to the various orders dated 06.08.2016, 18.08.2016 and 23.09.2016 passed by the Recovery Officer and certain orders earlier passed issuing recovery certificates on 04.03.2003 and 07.03.2003.

2. Against the aforesaid orders passed, the petitioners have statutory remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore & Anr. Vs. Mathew K.C.; Civil Appeal No.1281/2018 decided on 30th January, 2018 in paragraphs 18 and 19 has discussed the issue with regard to exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in the following manner:-

"18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High

Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Another, 1997 (6) SCC 450, observing :-

"32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops."

19. The impugned orders are therefore contrary to the law laid down by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and unsustainable. They are therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed."

3. In view of the above, it is clear that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the aforesaid orders is not maintainable before this Court.

4. We, therefore, see no reason to make indulgence into the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed along with the pending applications.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SEPTEMBER 26, 2018/'anb' V. KAMESWAR RAO, J