Sri Kiran Kumar S vs The Chief Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 11447 Kant

                         -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL B. KATTI

        WRIT APPEAL NO.544 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI KIRAN KUMAR S
S/O LATE SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO.56
(OLD KHATHA NO.48)
NEW MUNICIPAL NO.9
PID NO.35-140-9
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD
MALAGALU VILLAGE
YESHAWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560091                      ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI A T MALLYA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . THE CHIEF MANAGER
AND AUTHORISED OFFICER
UCO BANK, ZONAL OFFICE
2ND FLOOR, NO.13/22
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560009

2 . SMT. KUSUMA .S
W/O RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.374, 5TH CROSS
5TH MAIN, RANGANATHAPURA
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BANGALORE-560079
                                 -2-



3 . SRI K.K.KUMAR
ADVOCATE AND COURT COMMISSIONER
CMM COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE-560001                ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE LEGALITY OF THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION IN WP
NO.9566/2022 (GM-RES) DATED 15.06.2022 AND SET
ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY,   ACTING    CHIEF  JUSTICE   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Sri A.T.Mallya, learned counsel for the

appellant.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against

the order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.9566/2022.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the appellant challenged the

order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned VIII

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru,

under Section 14 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the SARFAESI Act' for short) in a writ petition.

The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order

dated 15.06.2022, has declined to entertain the writ

petition on the ground of availability of remedy of

appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In

the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has

been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the order passed by the learned Magistrate

suffers from patent illegality and has been passed in

violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and

the Rules made thereunder and therefore, the

learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the

writ petition. In support of the aforesaid submission,

reliance has been placed on the decision of a

Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in

'M/S. MANGALAGIRI TEXTILE MILLS PRIVATE

LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE BANK OF

INDIA, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND

ANOTHER' (W.P.No.30161/2021) and the decision

of the Calcutta High Court in 'UNITED BANK OF

INDIA AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF WEST

BENGAL AND OTHERS' (W.P.No.21814 (W) of

2017).

4. We have considered the submissions

made by learned counsel for the appellant. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'UNITED BANK OF INDIA

vs SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS' ([2010] 8

SCC 110) at paragraph 43 of the order has held as

under:

"43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action

taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi- judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute."

5. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which binds this

Court, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has

rightly relegated the appellant to avail of the

alternative remedy. We, therefore, do not find any

ground to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending

interlocutory applications do not survive for

consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv