Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 741 (MP)

Shantilal Sharma v. State of M. P.

2019-10-18

ANJULI PALU, SUJOY PAUL

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 3.7.2019 passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of power under section 14 of Securitisation Act. The consequential order of Tahsildar dated 13.8.2019 (Annexure P-6) is also called in question. 2. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that although there exists an alternative remedy to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the said Act, interference may be made in this petition because the impugned order is passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Since the principles of natural justice are violated, this writ petition is maintainable. 3. Prayer is opposed by Shri Chaturvedi on the strength of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Nobel Kumar and other, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 264 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Garg v. Bank of Baroda, reported in 2018(2) JLJ 585 = (2018) 3 MPLJ 615 . 4. We have heard the parties at length. 5. Indisputably, there exists a statutory alternative remedy to the petitioner. No doubt, in the event principles of natural justice are violated, the Writ Court can exercise its jurisdiction. It is not the question of lack of jurisdiction, it is the question of discretion. There is no compulsion that in every case where principles of natural justice are violated, writ petition should be entertained. If the alternative remedy is efficacious and statutory, the petitioner can be relegated to avail the said remedy. 6. The apex Court in (2005) 8 SCC 264 (U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey) opined that merely because principles of natural justice are violated, it is not necessary to entertain a writ petition unless something more is shown i.e. if the petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative remedy, it will cause palpable injustice to him and the order impugned is passed by an incompetent authority. In the instant case, the petitioner could neither establish that the alternative statutory remedy is not competent to grant relief or interim relief nor could establish that the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority. Thus, we find no reason to entertain this petition in view of availability of statutory alternative remedy. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner could neither establish that the alternative statutory remedy is not competent to grant relief or interim relief nor could establish that the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority. Thus, we find no reason to entertain this petition in view of availability of statutory alternative remedy. 7. At this stage, Shri Mishra submits that if the petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative remedy till he avails the said remedy, the execution proceedings may be stayed. 8. We do not see any merit in this contention also in view of judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437 (Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania). The relevant portion of said judgment reads as under: "22. It is a settled legal position 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 ( AIR 1966 SC 1441 )" and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke ( AIR 1975 SC 2238 ))." [Emphasis supplied] 9. In the light of aforesaid, in our view, since the petitioner has an efficacious statutory alternative remedy wherein he can pray for a stay before the appropriate forum, no case is made out for interference in view of judgment of Nobel Kumar and Sunil Garg (supra). 10. The petition is disposed of with a liberty to avail the alternative remedy. .....................