Pradeep Jaiswal vs Punjab National Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 3333 MP

Writ Petition No.11634/2021                                              1



HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

                   Writ Petition No.11634/2021
    Pradeep Jaiswal & Another v/s Punjab National Bank & Others
Indore, dated 15.07.2021
        Heard through video conferencing.
        Shri Abhishek Malviya, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
        Heard on admission.
        This petition filed on 30.06.2021 assails an order passed
way back on 16.03.2020 by learned Additional District
Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002.
        Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although
a statutory remedy of appeal is available before the Tribunal, this
petition can be entertained because (i) petitioners' Fundamental
Rights are infringed (ii) the order impugned is passed by playing
fraud. It is further submitted that petitioner is ready to file appeal
and approach the Tribunal. Till such time appeal is filed and
heard, the petitioners may be protected.
        Learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on
(1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation v/s Registrar of Trade
Marks, Mumbai & Others) and (2003) 2 SCC 107 (Harbanslal
Sahnia & Another v/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited &
Others) submits that despite availability of statutory alternative
remedy, the writ petition can be entertained.
        The petitioners waited for almost one year and four
 Writ Petition No.11634/2021                                            2



months to assail the impugned order dated 16.03.2020. The
petitioners did not approach this Court against the order dated
16.03.2020

(Annexure-P/3) with quite promptitude. If the petitioners could have waited for this long time, we are unable to gather as to what prevented them to avail the appellate remedy during this time. No doubt the writ petition can be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy in view of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners but the same is discretion of the Court and not a compulsion. In (2005) 8 SCC 264 (U.P. State Spinning Corporation Limited v/s R.S. Pandey & Another), the Apex Court again considered the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) and opined as under:-

17. Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute."

Emphasis supplied This is not the case of the petitioners that the Additional District Magistrate did not have jurisdiction and competence to pass the impugned order. If the order impugned is otherwise erroneous, it can be corrected in appeal. We are unable to hold that if the present petitioners, who belatedly approached this Court are relegated to avail the remedy of appeal, it will cause any palpable injustice to them.

So far as question of granting interim relief is concerned, in our view the said interim relief cannot be granted in a petition of this nature where this Court is relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy.

In (2010) 9 SCC 437 (Kalabharti Advertising v/s Hemant Vimalnath Narichan & Others), the Apex Court opined as under:-

"22. It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (vide: State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1305; State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685; State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh "Balak" & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1441; and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2238)."

Emphasis supplied In view of forgoing analysis, it is not a fit case where petition can directly be entertained. The petition is dismissed by reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy.

    (SUJOY PAUL)                                        (ANIL VERMA)
      JUDGE                                               JUDGE

Ravi

Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2021.07.15 16:53:21 +05'30'