Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1879/2021 on 16 September, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.1879 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate, for the
respondent No.1.
Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder, for
the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.2.
The petitioner before this Court has
approached before this Court, in the writ petition
as against the order of 16.03.2021, which is said
to have been passed by the respondents, while
exercising their powers under Section 14 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
The contention of the petitioner before this
Court is that the said order was passed ex-parte,
and no opportunity of hearing was provided to
the petitioner. Coupled with the fact he submits,
that as against the orders passed under Section 14
of the Securitisation Act, 2002, the Forum
created under law, under Section 17 of the Act, to
approach before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, is
not available to the petitioner.
The said contention of the petitioner is not
acceptable by this Court for the reason being that
in a recent judgment which was rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 2 SCC
392, "C. Bright Vs. District Collector &
others", it has been held that the remedy which
would be available to the aggrieved person
against the secured creditor, on the culmination
of the proceedings under Section 13/14 of the Act
of 2002, is only by way of approaching the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, and not the High Court, as it
has been observed in paragraph No.21 of the said
judgment, which is extracted hereunder:-
"21. The Act was enacted to provide a
machinery for empowering banks and
financial institutions, so that they may
have the power to take possession of
secured assets and to sell them. The
DRT Act was first enacted to streamline
the recovery of public dues but the
proceedings under the said Act have not
given desirous results. Therefore, the
Act in question was enacted. This Court
in Mardia Chemical, Transcore and
Hindon Forge Private Limited has held
that the purpose of the Act pertains to
the speedy recovery of dues, by banks
and financial institutions. The true
intention of the Legislature is a
determining factor herein. Keeping the
objective of the Act in mind, the time
limit to take action by the District
Magistrate has been fixed to impress
upon the authority to take possession of
the secured assets. However, inability to
take possession within time limit does
not render the District Magistrate
Functus Officio. The secured creditor
has no control over the District
Magistrate who is exercising
jurisdiction Under Section 14 of the Act
for public good to facilitate recovery of
public dues. Therefore, Section 14 of
the Act is not to be interpreted literally
without considering the object and
purpose of the Act. If any other
interpretation is placed upon the
language of Section 14, it would be
contrary to the purpose of the Act. The
time limit is to instill a confidence in
creditors that the District Magistrate
will make an attempt to deliver
possession as well as to impose a duty
on the District Magistrate to make an
earnest effort to comply with the
mandate of the statute to deliver the
possession within 30 days and for
reasons to be recorded within 60 days.
In this light, the remedy Under Section
14 of the Act is not rendered redundant
if the District Magistrate is unable to
handover the possession. The District
Magistrate will still be enjoined upon,
the duty to facilitate delivery of
possession at the earliest."
In that eventuality, and in view of the
aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, the appropriate recourse available to the
petitioner, as against the order passed under
Section 14 of the Act of 2002, would be to
approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, under
Section 17 of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is
dismissed subject to the liberty left open for the
petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery
Tribunal, under Section 17 of the Act.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
16.09.2021
NR/
