Telangana High Court

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs Punjab National Bank on 15 December, 2021

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Chillakur Sumalatha

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
                      HYDERABAD
                         ****

W.P.No.28105 of 2019 Between:

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Petitioner VERSUS Punjab National Bank Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad.

Represented by its Branch Manager And another Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.12.2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

____________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, J

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

+ W.P.No.28105 of 2019

% 15.12.2021

# Between:

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Petitioner VERSUS Punjab National Bank Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad.

Represented by its Branch Manager And another Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Vedula Srinivas

^ Counsel for the respondents : Ms. N.V.Subba Raju

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

AIR 1961 SC 372

(1998) 8 SCC 1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

W.P.No.28105 OF 2019

Order:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated

24.11.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery

Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, i.e. respondent No.2.

3 By the aforesaid order dated 24.11.2019, respondent

No.2 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule

61 of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking

stay of all proceedings pursuant to auction of the schedule

property conducted on 05.09.2019 including confirmation of

sale and sale certificate.

4 Pleaded case of the petitioner is that his father Bal

Kishan Agarwal availed a housing loan of Rs.18,00,000-00

from respondent No.1-Punjab National Bank in the year

2011. For availing the said loan, the property bearing House

No.1-2-593/17, Domalguda, Hyderabad, was mortgaged in

favour of respondent No.1 ('mortgaged property' hereinafter).

Petitioner also stood as guarantor for the said loan.

5 For various reasons there was default in repayment of

the loan amount. As a result, respondent No.1 declared the

loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

6 Thereafter, respondent No.1-Punjab National Bank

instituted proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of

Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993,

which has since been rechristened as Recovery of Debts and

Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the

1993 Act') before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad

(briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the Tribunal') for recovery of

a sum of Rs.18,02,516-00 together with interest and costs.

The said application was registered as O.A.No.584 of 2012.

While the father of the petitioner was arrayed as defendant

No.1, petitioner was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the said

O.A.No.584 of 2012.

7 It is stated that during the pendency of O.A.No.584 of

2012, respondent No.1 also initiated proceedings under the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to

hereinafter as the 'SARFAESI Act'). In this connection,

respondent No.1 took over possession of the mortgaged

property on 03.10.2015 by forcibly evicting the petitioner and

his family members. Since 03.10.2015 respondent No.1 is in

possession of the said property.

8 Authorised Officer of respondent No.1 issued notice

dated 09.10.2015 to the petitioner under Section 13 (4) of the

SARFAESI Act r/w Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (briefly, the 'SARFAESI Rules'

hereinafter). By the said notice, petitioner was called upon to

pay the "outstanding dues amounting to Rs.30,89,74,721-00"

within 30 days, failing which, it was stated that the secured

assets would be sold. The above property at Domalguda,

Hyderabad i.e., the mortgaged property was one of the

properties mentioned in the said notice. Interestingly, this

notice was addressed to the petitioner at his present

residential address C-I, Mayurkushal Complex, Abids,

Hyderabad.

9 By order dated 07.06.2017, Tribunal allowed

O.A.No.584 of 2012. Aforesaid order was passed ex-parte. It

was declared that defendant Nos.1 and 2 (father and

petitioner) were jointly and severally liable to pay to

respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.18,02,516-00 with future

interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.A till the

date of realization. It was further ordered that claim of the

applicant i.e. respondent No.1 is secured by mortgage of

immovable property as per the Schedule and that respondent

No.1 would be entitled to proceed against the mortgaged

property towards recovery of its debt.

10 When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid

ex-parte order dated 07.06.2017, he filed an Interlocutory

Application for setting aside the ex-parte order. Since there

was delay of 783 days, petitioner also filed an application for

condoning the said delay.

11 It may be mentioned that in the meanwhile Recovery

certificate No.838 of 2017 was issued by the Presiding Officer

of the Tribunal for an amount of Rs.26,29,815-00 plus

interest and costs mentioning therein the petitioner as

certificate debtor No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.1 initiated

recovery proceedings being R.P.No.838 of 2017 before

respondent No.2. From the documents placed on record, it is

seen that notice was issued by respondent No.2 to the

petitioner on 25.09.2017 in his address at House No.1-2-

593/17, Gaganmahal Colony, Domalguda, Hyderabad i.e., the

mortgaged property, possession of which was already taken

over by respondent No.1, whereafter petitioner is residing at

C-I, Mayurkushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad.

12 By the docket order dated 18.09.2018, Tribunal

declined to condone the delay. It was stated that petitioner

had intentionally defaulted to contest the matter, thereby to

delay the recovery proceedings. Petitioner had not explained

each day's delay. Consequently, the Interlocutory Application

filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order

dated 07.06.2017 was also dismissed.

13 Petitioner has further stated that respondent No.2

auctioned the house property as mentioned above on

05.09.2019. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were the successful

bidders, their bid value being Rs.3,81,00,000-00.

14 It appears that the house property was sold exercising

powers under Schedule-II of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(henceforth referred to as 'Schedule-II') applicable to auctions

conducted under the 1993 Act.

15 According to the petitioner, he did not receive any notice

from respondent No.2 prior to the auction sale. This is

because notices were issued to the petitioner in his

Domalguda address where he did not reside since the year

2015 as possession thereof was taken over by respondent

No.1 and subsequently auction sold.

16 This being the position, petitioner filed a petition on

20.09.2019 under Rule 61 of Schedule-II before respondent

No.2 seeking stay of all proceedings including confirmation of

sale and issuance of sale certificate following the auction held

on 05.09.2019 in respect of the house property (mortgaged

property). It was clearly mentioned therein that no notice was

served upon the petitioner despite being the certificate debtor

No.2. As required, petitioner deposited the entire certificate

amount of Rs.26,29,815-00 in favour of respondent No.2. As

a further amount of Rs.6,80,541-00 was demanded, petitioner

deposited the same as well with respondent No.2 by way of

demand draft. The said petition of the petitioner was

registered as M.P.No.192 of 2019 in R.P.No.838 of 2017 in

O.A.No.584 of 2012.

17 By the order dated 24.11.2019 respondent No.2

dismissed the said petition holding that petitioner is not

entitled to the relief sought for.

18 Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking

the reliefs as indicated above.

19 This Court, by order dated 18.12.2019, had admitted

the writ petition and also passed an interim order as sought

for by the petitioner.

20 Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit through its

Chief Manager and Authorised Officer Mr. N.Seetharaman. It

is stated that father of the petitioner Bal Kishan Agarwal had

availed housing loan of Rs.18,80,000-00 from respondent

No.1 on 29.03.2010. As security the borrower had created

equitable mortgage over the subject property i.e. land

admeasuring 582 square yards and building with ground

floor having plinth area 1300 Sq. feet and first floor with

plinth area 500 sft, being House No.1-2-593/17, Gaganmahal

Colony, Domalguda, Hyderabad (already referred to as the

'mortgaged property'; alternatively may be referred to as the

'schedule property' hereinafter).

21 Since the borrower failed to repay the loan, the loan

account was classified as NPA, whereafter respondent No.1

initiated recovery proceedings under the 1993 Act by filing

O.A.No.584 of 2012 before the Tribunal. It is stated that

family members and family firm of petitioner's father had

availed various loans from respondent No.1, but defaulted in

repayment in all such loans. According to respondent No.1,

the total outstanding dues of all the family members would be

Rs.31,97,60,175-00 as on 11.06.2012.

22 On the contention of the petitioner that O.A.No.584 of

2012 was decreed ex-parte, it is stated that petitioner did not

inform respondent No.1 about his new address. As a result,

respondent No.1 was left with no other option except to send

notice to the known address. Additionally, the notices were

published in newspapers as well.

23 Respondent No.1 has justified rejection of the delay

condonation petition by the Tribunal whereby petitioner had

sought for recalling of the ex-parte order dated 07.06.2017

passed in O.A.No.584 of 2012.

24 Regarding filing of M.P.No.192 of 2019 before

respondent No.2, it is stated that petitioner is not the owner

of the schedule property and therefore he has no locus standi

to question the auction process, more so, when the actual

owner i.e. the father has not challenged the same.

Contention of the petitioner that he did not receive notice has

been denied. It is stated that petitioner never communicated

the new address to respondent No.1. There was no scope for

respondent No.1 to find out the actual address of the

petitioner. As a measure of abundant caution, respondent

No.1 had published demand notice in connection with the

recovery proceeding R.P.No.838 of 2018 in newspapers i.e.

Andhra Prabha on 16.04.2019, Andhra Jyothi on 30.07.2019

and in The Hindu also on 30.07.2019.

25 Lastly, it is contended that petitioner has an effective

and adequate alternative remedy of filing appeal against the

impugned order dated 24.1.12019 under Section 30 of the

1993 Act. Since there is adequate and efficacious alternative

remedy available, which the petitioner did not avail, the writ

petition should be dismissed.

26 Respondent No.3 has also filed counter affidavit on his

behalf as well as on behalf of respondent No.4. It appears

that both respondent Nos.3 and 4 are brothers. They were

the successful bidders in the auction of the schedule property

held on 05.09.2019 at their bid value of Rs.3,81,00,000-00.

27 Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties

are on pleaded lines. Therefore, a detailed reference to the

same is considered not necessary. However, the submissions

so made have received the due consideration of the Court.

28 Though the matter appears to be hotly contested by the

parties with overlapping of statutes, it may not be necessary

for us to delve deep into the provisions of the 1993 Act as well

as the SARFAESI Act at this stage. Since the writ petition is

directed against the impugned order dated 24.11.2019

rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 61 of

Schedule-II, we may at the outset advert to the said provision.

29 Schedule-II to the Act lays down the procedure for

recovery of tax. There is no dispute at the Bar that the said

Schedule is also applicable for recovery of dues or for

execution of recovery certificates under the 1993 Act. Rule 2

deals with issue of notice. It says that when a Certificate has

been drawn up for recovery of arrears under the Schedule,

the Tax Recovery Officer (in this case the Recovery Officer of

the Tribunal i.e.., respondent No.2) shall cause to be served

upon the defaulter a notice requiring the defaulter to pay the

amount specified in the Certificate within 15 days from the

date of service of notice with intimation that in the event of

default, steps would be taken to realize the Certificate

amount.

30 From the above, it is evident that a notice is required to

be served upon the defaulter calling upon the defaulter to pay

the Certificate amount within 15 days from the date of service

of the notice. It means the notice has to be personally served

on the defaulter.

31 As per Rule 3, no step in execution of a Certificate shall

be taken until the period of 15 days has elapsed since the

date of service of the notice required by Rule 2.

32 Rule 4 mentions the modes of recovery which includes

by way of attachment and sale of property.

33 Part III of Schedule-II deals with attachment and sale of

immovable property. While Rule 48 deals with attachment,

Rule 49 provides that a copy of the order of attachment shall

be served on the defaulter.

34 Rule 61 provides for filing of application to set aside sale

of immovable property on the ground of non-service of notice

or irregularity. Since this provision is relevant, the same is

extracted hereunder:

Application to set aside sale of immovable property on ground of non-service of notice or irregularity.

61. Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a certificate, such Income-tax Officer as may be authorized by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in this behalf, the defaulter, or any person whose interests are affected by the sale, may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside the sale of the immovable property on the ground that notice was not served on the defaulter to pay the arrears as required by this Schedule or on the ground of a material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale:

Provided that-

(a) no sale shall be set aside on any such ground unless the Tax Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of the non- service or irregularity; and

(b) an application made by a defaulter under this rule shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the

amount recoverable from him in the execution of the certificate.

35 From a perusal of the above, we find that if the

immovable property has been sold in execution of a Recovery

Certificate, the defaulter or any person whose interests are

affected by the sale, may, at any time within 30 days from the

date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer (Recovery

Officer of the Tribunal in this case) to set aside the sale of the

immovable property on the ground that notice was not served

on the defaulter to pay the arrears as required or on the

ground of a material irregularity. The proviso contains two

clauses. As per Clause (a), no sale shall be set aside on any

ground unless the Tax Recovery Officer (Recovery Officer) is

satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury

by reason of non-service or irregularity. As per Clause (b), an

application made by a defaulter under Rule 61 shall be

disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount

recoverable from him in execution of the Certificate.

36 Interestingly, the remedy provided under Rule 61 is not

confined only to the defaulter. Any person, whose interests

are affected by the sale, and not necessarily a defaulter, may

make an application under Rule 61 subject to fulfillment of

the conditions as per the proviso.

37 Having noticed the above, we may now advert to the

stand of the petitioner in the application filed under Rule 61

of Schedule-II. Petitioner had pleaded that he was Certificate

debtor No.2 in the recovery certificate issued which was the

subject matter of R.P.No.838 of 2017. His specific contention

was that the certificate debtors were not residing in the

schedule property since the year 2015 as respondent No.1

had forcibly taken over possession of the said property under

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It was further stated that

petitioner was residing at his new address at C-I,

Mayurkushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. Despite this,

respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 issued all the

notices to the address at schedule property (mortgaged

property). Consequently no notice was served on the

certificate debtors including the petitioner. Respondent No.1

contested the said application by contending that petitioner

was very much aware of the recovery proceedings. According

to respondent No.1, the said application was filed with an

intention to drag on the recovery proceedings. Respondent

No.2 rejected the above application of the petitioner by the

impugned order dated 24.11.2019, relevant portion of which

is extracted hereunder:

9. A perusal of pleadings clearly reveal that the petitioner has filed the present petition under Rule 61 of Second Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961 by depositing the Certificate amount as provided under the above said Rule. To consider the issues involved in the matter, I have perused the records pertaining to this R.P. which reveal that the respondent bank filed the above O.A for recovery of debt from the defendants therein which was allowed by Hon'ble Presiding Officer vide orders dated 07.06.2017 and a Recovery Certificate issued therein was forwarded to the Ld. Recovery Officer for recovery of debt by following the procedure prescribed under RDB Act

and Second and Third Schedules to Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly the recovery proceedings were initiated in the above R.P by issuing demand notice dated 25.09.2017. As the said notices were returned unserved, substitute service was ordered for publication in Andhra Prabha Telugu Daily in Hyderabad Edition and accordingly the notice was published in Andhra Prabha Telugu Daily news paper dated 16.04.2019. As the Certificate Debtors failed to liquidate the debt, the undersigned continued the recovery proceedings by issuing Form 16 (Notice for attachment) dated 23.05.2019 and Form 17 (Notice for Setting Proclamation) dated 23.05.2019. As the Certificate Debtors failed to liquidate the Certificate amount, the undersigned ordered for sale of property in question through on line E-Auction on the website of Service Provider fixing the online auction on 5.9.2019 and in the said auction Shri Gopal Agarwal & Govid Agarwal has been declared as highest successful bidder who paid the entire sale amount with poundage fee within the stipulated time and when the matter is coming for confirmation of sale in his favour, the present petition is filed as stated herein above.

10. A perusal of Rule 61 of Second Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961 and record pertaining to R.P. reveal that the service of demand notice dated 16.04.2019 was complete by way of publication in Andhra Prabha Telugu Daily. The petitioner except stating that the respondent bank got the demand notices sent to the address / premises which was in possession of respondent bank as on that date etc., has not chosen to file any document to show that he has informed the respondent bank about change of address at any point of time. The petitioner having alleged that there are several irregularities in conducting sale by Recovery Officer has not chosen to file any document to establish any material irregularity to consider under the above said Rule. On the other hand, the pleadings reveal that the petitioner having come to know about the scheduled auction sale on 5.9.2019 had chosen to move petitions before the Hon'ble Presiding Officer for setting aside the orders passed in O.A. etc, but has not chosen to file objections before the Ld. Recovery Officer except filing a Memo dated 11.9.2019 on which date the orders were Reserved by Hon'ble Presiding Officer.

11. As could be seen from the provisions of law under which the present petition is filed, the Ld. Recovery Officer is empowered to set aside the sale only on the ground of non service of notice or irregularity. From the above, it can be seen that the petitioner has not made out any case that no notice was served on him. The petitioner except stating that there are several irregularities in conducting sale has not chosen to place any material on record to establish that there was material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale as provided under the above said Rule.

12. On due consideration of the above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for and accordingly the point for consideration is answered in favour of respondent bank and against the petitioner.

38 From the above, it is seen that upon receipt of the

recovery certificate, respondent No.2 issued demand notice

dated 25.09.2017. It is admitted by respondent No.2 that the

said notice was returned unserved. Thereafter substituted

notice was ordered which was published in the newspaper

Andhra Prabha on 16.04.2019, Andhra Jyothi on 30.07.2019

and the Hindu also on 30.07.2019. As the certificate debtors

failed to liquidate the certificate amount, respondent No.2

ordered for sale of the schedule property. Thus, it is

contended that service of notice was complete by way of

newspaper publication on 16.04.2019 and 30.07.2019.

39 As we have already noticed above, as per Rule 2 of

Schedule-II, the notice has to be served upon the defaulter

calling upon him to pay the certificate amount and under

Rule 49 a copy of the order of attachment of immovable

property is also required to be served on the defaulter. Thus,

service of notice or service of the order of attachment has its

own significance under Schedule-II. Burden is on the

Recovery Officer to cause the notice under Rule 2 to be served

upon the borrower. It does not speak about substituted

service of notice through newspaper publication. In fact, Rule

61 makes it clear that the defaulter or any person whose

interests are affected by the sale may make an application for

setting aside the sale on the ground of non-service of notice.

40 We find from page No.48 of the paper book that the

order of attachment of immovable property under Rule 48 of

Schedule-II was sent by the Recovery Officer to the petitioner

and his father being the certificate debtors in the address of

the schedule property (mortgaged property) where admittedly

the certificate debtors did not reside.

41 From the above, it is evident that notice was not served

upon the borrower. Insofar petitioner is concerned,

respondents have not disputed that he is the son of the

borrower and a guarantor to the loan. In fact, he is the

certificate debtor No.2. Therefore, his interests are affected

by the sale and he has sustained substantial injury by reason

of non-service of notice. In the instant case, we may mention

that the sale took place on 05.09.2019 and the application

under Rule 61 was filed on 20.09.2019 well within the

stipulated period of thirty days from the date of sale. That

apart, petitioner has complied with all the conditions of Rule

61 including depositing the entire certificate amount with

respondent No.2. In the circumstances respondent No.2

ought to have looked into the grievance expressed by the

petitioner and thereafter ought to have taken a reasoned

decision in accordance with law. We are afraid, respondent

No.2 failed to do so.

42 Contention of respondent No.1 that it was not aware of

the new address of the petitioner is not correct as it had

issued the notice dated 09.10.2015 under Section 13 (4) of

the SARFAESI Act to the petitioner at his present address, C-

I, Mayurkushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad where he is now

residing.

43 Though respondent No.1 has alleged that other family

members of the petitioner had availed loans from it and had

defaulted in repayment leading to several causes of action

with huge outstanding dues, in this proceeding we are only

concerned with the recovery certificate issued pursuant to the

order of the Tribunal dated 07.06.2017 and which is the

subject matter of Recovery Proceeding No.838 of 2017 as per

which the Certificate amount is Rs.26,29,815-00 with

applicable interest. When the recovery certificate is for an

amount of Rs.26,29,815-00 with interest, we fail to

understand as to how respondent No.2 could auction sale the

mortgaged property for Rs.3,81,00,000-00, which is way

beyond the certificate amount. It may be that other firms and

family members of the petitioner may be defaulters of further

amounts. But when it comes to execution of the recovery

certificate in question, it will be wholly unfair and unjust if

the schedule property, which is worth much more in the

market, is sold in its entirety for recovery of certificate

amount which is a fraction of the auctioned amount and the

entire sale amount is appropriated. This is an aspect which

certainly cannot be overlooked and brushed aside lightly.

44 On the question of alternative remedy, it is true that

Section 30 of the 1993 Act provides that any person aggrieved

by an order of the Recovery Officer, may file an appeal before

the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal within 30 days.

However, the law is well settled that notwithstanding

availability of an effective and efficacious alternate remedy,

the High Court may still exercise its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India where the writ petition is filed

for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where

there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice

or where the order or proceedings are wholly without

jurisdiction or where the vires of an enactment is challenged.

This position continues to be the guiding principle since

Calcutta Discount Company Limited Vs. I.T.O1 though

much water has flown under the bridge. This position has

been succinctly summed up by the Supreme Court in

Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks2 in the

following manner:

14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights

AIR 1961 SC 372

(1998) 8 SCC 1

contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.

45 After referring to various past decisions of the Supreme

Court, it was held as follows:

20. Much water has since flown beneath the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.

46 In the light of the above, we are of the view that

petitioner has made out a case of violation of the principles of

natural justice and thereby invoking the writ jurisdiction of

this Court. We hold that respondent No.2 was not justified in

rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 61

of Schedule-II in the manner in which it was done.

47 Consequently, we set aside the impugned order dated

24.11.2019 and remand the matter back to respondent No.2

for a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let the

decision on remand be taken within a period of 60 days from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.