Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1722 (RAJ)

Shoe World v. District Collector, Kota

2011-08-16

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Since a common point is involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order. 3. Petitioners, in these writ petitions, are borrowers and guarantors. The borrowers took loan from Respondent No. 2-Bank. However, the same was not paid in time, therefore, Respondent No. 2-Bank issued notices dated 01.06.2010 to the petitioners under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short 'the Act'), to deposit the entire due amount alongwith details of the properties, which were mortgaged i.e. secured assets. The petitioners, neither deposited the due amount, nor they filed any reply or representation under Section 13(3A) of the Act. Respondent No. 2-Bank, thereafter filed application under Section 14 of the Act before District Magistrate, Kota for taking possession of secured assets/immovable properties of the borrowers and guarantors and to hand over the possession thereof to the Bank or to authorised person on behalf of the Bank. Respondent No. 1, District Magistrate, Kota, issued notice to the petitioners and in response thereto, the petitioners filed reply to the application with a prayer to dismiss the application. Respondent No. 1, District Magistrate, Kota vide its judgment dated 02.05.2011 allowed the application filed by Respondent No. 2-Bank and directed the Police Superintendent(City), Kota for handing over physical possession of secured assets to Respondent No. 2-Bank. Being aggrieved with the notice dated 01.06.2010 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act and judgment dated 02.05.2011, passed by District Magistrate, Kota, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions before this Court on 25.05.2011. 4. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Respondent No. 2-Bank has added some renewal charges in the notices dated 01.06.2010, issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, which could not have been added as per law, therefore, notices issued under Section 13(2) of the Act were not legal and District Magistrate, Kota committed an illegality in passing impugned orders. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the impugned orders passed by Respondent No. 1 District Magistrate, Kota and other record of the case. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the impugned orders passed by Respondent No. 1 District Magistrate, Kota and other record of the case. 6. So far as notices dated 01.06.2010 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act are concerned, it is relevant to mention that the petitioners did not file any representation against the same under Section 13(3A) of the Act. The remedy of filing representation before Respondent No. 2-Bank was available to the petitioners, but the said remedy was not availed by the petitioners. It is a settled law that ordinarily High Court does not entertain the writ petition directly where statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Further, writ petitions against notices dated 01.06.2010 under Section 13(2) of the Act have now become highly belated and it cannot be allowed to be challenged after a period of almost one year. It is pertinent to mention that even if, no period of limitation is prescribed for filing writ petition, but the same is required to be filed at the earliest or within reasonable time. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not explained the delay of about one year in filing present writ petitions against notices dated 01.06.2010. Therefore, writ petitions against notice dated 01.06.2010 under Section 13(2) of the Act are liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to petitioners under Section 13(3A) of the Act as well as highly belated or delay in filing the writ petitions. 7. So far as order dated 02.05.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Kota is concerned, it is relevant to mention that under Section 14 of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the District Magistrate to take the possession of the mortgaged property/secured assets and to hand over the same to the secured creditor/bank, therefore, District Magistrate, Kota has done nothing, except performing a statutory duty cast upon it under Section 14 of the Act. 8. In these circumstances and for the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed in limine. 9. A copy of this order be placed on record in each connected file.Petitions dismissed. *******