- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sushil Kumar Agarwalla And Anr. v. State Of Assam And Ors.
Summary of Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
Concise narrative drawn exclusively from the provided opinion.
The petitioners obtained financial assistance from the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Limited (the Bank) to facilitate expansion of tea estates. Sanctioned facilities included Working Capital Assistance (Rs. 95.70 lakh at 14.75% p.a.) and a Medium Term Loan (Rs. 50,47,315 at 14.50% p.a.). The petitioners admit liability for repayment of the principal amount of Rs. 1,17,06,398.69 but dispute interest claimed (Rs. 35,51,556.95 / interest component recorded as Rs. 40,81,493.95 in the Bakijai proceedings).
On default, the Bank initiated Bakijai Certificate proceedings under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 read with the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (BPDR Act), registered as Bakijai Case No. B-13/2005, claiming Rs. 1,57,98,892.64 (breakdown: principal Rs. 1,17,06,398.69; interest Rs. 40,81,493.95; court fee Rs. 11,000). The Bakijai Officer in an order dated 1.3.2006 upheld the principal but did not award interest, leaving interest open on condition of correct account statements from the Bank.
The petitioners appealed under section 51(1)(a) of the BPDR Act against that order; the appeal is said to be pending. Meanwhile, the Bank issued a notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demanding Rs. 1,57,87,892.64 as on 31.5.2005 (inclusive of interest and indicating further interest and costs), along with schedules identifying secured assets (movable and immovable assets related to tea estates).
The petitioners objected to the section 13(2) notice by letter dated 19.8.2006. The Bank responded by a letter dated 22.6.2006 to the Bakijai Officer stating its intention to pursue remedies under the SARFAESI Act and requesting the Bakijai Officer not to proceed; and by a letter dated 28.8.2006 (signed by the General Manager / Authorised Officer) disposing of the petitioners' Annexure-12 objections to the section 13(2) notice.
The petitioners filed the present writ petition under article 226 challenging the section 13(2) notice primarily on four grounds (see Legal Issues Presented). The High Court considered submissions and material on record and dismissed the writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is inapplicable because the security interest relates to agricultural land (relying on section 31(i) of the Act).
- Whether the Bank failed to comply with the pre-requirement of dealing with objections raised against the section 13(2) notice (per the principles in Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India).
- Whether the Bank could include interest in the demand given that the Bakijai Officer did not grant interest as part of the certificate.
- Whether the Bank, having initiated proceedings under the BPDR Act (Bakijai proceedings), could concurrently initiate or pursue remedies under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The SARFAESI Act does not apply because the security interest is in agricultural land and therefore excluded under section 31(i) of the Act.
- The Bank did not comply with the requirement to deal with the objection raised to the section 13(2) notice (invoking the Supreme Court's decision in Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India).
- The Bank could not include interest in its demand since the Bakijai Officer had held interest not recoverable in the Bakijai proceedings.
- The Bank having invoked jurisdiction under the BPDR Act earlier cannot now take recourse to the SARFAESI Act concurrently.
- The petitioners stated they were not in a position to make any payment when asked whether they could at least pay principal or a percentage thereof; they nevertheless asserted an intention to repay honestly and sought stay of the impugned notice and proceedings.
Respondent Bank's Arguments
- The writ petition is not maintainable because the SARFAESI Act itself provides the appropriate mechanism and statutory remedies; constitutional writ jurisdiction should not bypass those remedies.
- The secured assets include movables and immovables (tea bushes, factory building, plant and machinery, current assets etc.), not agricultural land within the meaning of section 31(i); therefore section 31(i) does not exclude the Bank's action under the SARFAESI Act.
- The Bank had in fact dealt with and disposed of the petitioners' objection to the section 13(2) notice by its letter dated 28.8.2006.
- The Bank validly communicated its intention to pursue SARFAESI remedies to the Bakijai Officer by letter dated 22.6.2006 (intimation under section 34 of the Act), requesting withdrawal of the Bakijai proceedings, so the simultaneous proceedings contention is not tenable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 | Objection to a section 13(2) notice must be dealt with by the creditor before taking further action under the SARFAESI Act. | The court found the Bank had dealt with the petitioners' Annexure-12 objection by its letter dated 28.8.2006 and therefore held the requirement emphasized in Mardia Chemicals was complied with. |
| Barak Valley Tea Company v. Union of India (High Court judgment dated 13.9.2006) | Authority of the High Court in an earlier similar matter holding that a writ petition at the stage of a section 13(2) notice was premature. | The court relied on that earlier decision of this court (dismissing a similar writ) in support of the conclusion that the present petition was premature and not deserving of interference under article 226. |
| D. Ravichand v. Manager, Overseas Bank (Madras High Court, WP No. 250/2006) | Holding that a writ petition challenging action at the stage of a section 13(2) notice is premature; also addressed the meaning of "agricultural land" under section 31(i). | The court referred to this decision to support the view that the petition was premature at the section 13(2) notice stage and for guidance on the interpretation of "agricultural land" in that context. |
| Panjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, AIR 2001 SCW 2993 | When a statute provides an alternative remedy (and a fast track procedure), courts should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under articles 226/227 to interfere, directing parties to the statutory appeal mechanism. | The court quoted this authority to underscore that the petitioners should not bypass the statutory remedy (appeal under section 17 of SARFAESI Act) and that judicial prudence favors refraining from exercising article 226 where an efficacious statutory remedy exists. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Step-by-step presentation of the court's legal analysis as contained in the opinion.
- Admissibility and factual matrix:
- The court accepted that the basic facts (loan amount, default, issuance of section 13(2) notice, schedules of secured assets) were not in dispute, and noted the petitioners' admission of liability for the principal amount.
- Applicability of SARFAESI Act (section 31(i) / "agricultural land"):
- On perusal of the Bank's schedules and the loan agreement dated 24.5.2002, the court found no indication that a security interest had been created in agricultural land so as to exclude application of the SARFAESI Act under section 31(i).
- Consequently, the plea that the Act did not apply on account of agricultural land failed on the material before the court.
- Whether objections to the section 13(2) notice were dealt with (Mardia Chemicals):
- The petitioners relied on Mardia Chemicals to contend the objection was not dealt with. The Bank produced its letter dated 28.8.2006 that explicitly addressed and disposed of the petitioners' Annexure-12 objections.
- The court held that the Bank had complied with the requirement to deal with the objection as envisaged under section 13(2) and emphasized in Mardia Chemicals.
- Simultaneous proceedings under BPDR Act and SARFAESI Act:
- The Bank had informed the Bakijai Officer by letter dated 22.6.2006 of its decision to pursue remedies under the SARFAESI Act and requested the Bakijai Officer not to proceed (an intimation under section 34 of the SARFAESI Act).
- The court concluded that because of that intimation, the Bakijai proceeding and any order passed therein had no effect, and the appeal filed by the petitioners against the Bakijai Officer's order had become redundant.
- The court noted statutory interplay: section 37 makes SARFAESI Act provisions in addition to other law but section 35 has overriding effect; the Bank's notice to Bakijai Officer sufficed to render Bakijai proceedings ineffective in the circumstances.
- Prematurity and availability of statutory remedies:
- The court explained that the impugned notice was at the stage of section 13(2) (a notice requiring discharge of liabilities within 60 days) and that the Bank had complied with the procedural mandates in issuing that notice.
- Upon failure to discharge the liability within the notice period, the Bank would be entitled to exercise powers under section 13(4). If dissatisfied with any action under section 13(4), the petitioners would have a statutory remedy by way of appeal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
- The court held that invoking writ jurisdiction at this stage would bypass the statutory remedy and was premature; the court relied on precedent (including the quoted passage from Panjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan) to reinforce that judicial restraint is warranted where an efficacious statutory appellate forum exists.
- Outcome on merits:
- Given the petitioners' admission of principal liability, the court found no ground on the merits to interfere with the notice issued under section 13(2).
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition is DISMISSED.
Immediate consequences for the parties:
- The section 13(2) notice issued by the Bank stands; the petitioners are required to discharge their liabilities as per that notice within the statutory period (or face enforcement measures available under section 13(4)).
- If the petitioners are dissatisfied with any action taken under section 13(4), they may avail themselves of the statutory appeal remedy under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act; the High Court declined to entertain the writ to avoid bypassing that remedy.
- The Bakijai proceedings were rendered ineffective by the Bank's intimation to the Bakijai Officer; the appeal pending before the Deputy Commissioner against the Bakijai Officer's order was treated as redundant by the court's reasoning.
- There shall be no order as to costs (as stated in the opinion).
Broader implications: The court applied and followed existing authorities and statutory principles (including Mardia Chemicals and Panjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan) to emphasize that a creditor's compliance with the procedural mandates of the SARFAESI Act (including dealing with objections to a section 13(2) notice) and the availability of statutory appellate remedies justify refusal to entertain premature writ petitions. The opinion does not announce a new legal precedent beyond applying the cited authorities to the facts before the court.
1. The petitioners, while admitting at least the liability of the repayment of the principal amount of loan amounting to Rs. 1,17,06,398.69 payable to the respondent Bank and disputing the interest charged to the tune of Rs. 35,51,556.95 have challenged the notice issued under section 13(2) of the Securetisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’) on the following grounds:
1. The Act does not apply to the case as per provisions of section 31(i) of the Act, the security interest created being agricultural land.
2. Not following the pre-requirement of dealing with the objection raised in respect of the impugned notice under section 13(2) of the Act.
3. The respondent Bank could not have included the amount relating to interest in the demand made by the impugned notice, inasmuch as the Bakijai Officer of the Co-operative Societies has already held the same to be not recoverable.
4. The Bank already having invoked the jurisdiction under Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, cannot now take recourse to SARFAESI Act, 2002.
2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioners applied for financial assistance to the respondent No. 2 Bank, i.e, the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Limited in order to facilitate expansion of its tea estates. According to the petitioners the Bank delayed the process of disbursement of the amount by about two years. The financial assistance sanctioned by the Bank was under the following heads.
“(a) Working Capital Assistance (‘WCA’) amounting to Rs. 95.70 Lakh bearing interest @ 14.75% per annum vide Sanction Letter No. ACAB/HO/ADV.TEA/CC/2002/3686-3689 dated 11.5.2002 against the loan proposal for season 2002-2003.
(b) Medium Term Loan ‘MTL’) amounting to Rs. 50,47,315 bearing interest @ 14.50% per annum vide sanction letter No. A CAB/HO/TEA/MT/2002/4047-4060 dated 8.7.2002”
3. It is the case of the petitioners that due to the delay in disbursement of the promised loan, and owing to non-disbursement of the entire sanctioned loan, the petitioners suffered financial loss to the extent of Rs. 75,00,000 in their business resulting in delay in re-payment of the installments towards liquidation of the loan. However, they have asserted that they have the honest intention to re-pay the loan.
4. On failure of the petitioners in making the timely repayment of the loan, the respondent Bank initiated Bakijai Certificate proceeding against the petitioners before the Bakijai Officer of the Co-roperative Societies as per the provisions of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 read with the provisions of Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913 (BPDR Act) The proceeding was registered and numbered as Bakijai Case No. B-13/2005 for recovery of the total amount of Rs. 1,57,98,892.64. The breakups of this total amount are as follows:
A. Principal — Rs. 1,17,06,398.69 B. Interest — Rs. 40,81,493.95 C. Court fee — Rs. 11,000 Total claim — Rs. 1,57,98,892.64
5. The Bakijai Officer, by his judgment and order dated 1.3.2006 upheld the certificate in respect of the principal amount of Rs. 1,17,06,398.69, but did not pass order for payment of the interest. However, it was provided in the order that the issue regarding the payment of interest by the certificate debtor, i.e, the petitioners could be considered provided the certificate holder, i.e, the Bank submitted correct statements of accounts pertaining to interest keeping in mind the observations made in the order. Thus, although the interest was not awarded in the order but it was kept open to be decided in due course.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the certificate officer, the petitioners have preferred an appeal under section 51(1)(a) of the BPDR Act, 1913 and the same is purportedly pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup.
7. In the meantime, the Bank has issued the impugned notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 making a demand of Rs. 1,57,87,892.64, which is inclusive of the interest claimed. The amount has been calculated upto 31.5.2005 with the indication of further interest and incidental expenses and cost etc. Alongwith the notice, the Bank has also enclosed the particulars of the credit facilities by way of financial assistance and the security agreements/documents executed by the petitioners as indicated in Schedule-A and B excluding pledge of movables. The notice also indicates that as per an agreement executed on 24.5.2002, the properties of the particular tea estate would continue to be mortgaged, charged and hypothecated to the Bank for all loans raised. The relevant particulars of the secured assets have been specifically stated in Schedule-C, which reads as follows:
“SCHEDULE ‘C’
PART I
All the hypothecated properties, viz. Current Assets including Stocks, Book Debts, Receivables, Consumable Stores & Spares and Hypothecated Movable Plant & Machinery etc. mentioned in the documents in SCHEDULE ‘B’
(i) The entries crop of green leaf and manufactured tea,
(ii) The plants and machineries in the factory,
PART II
The particulars of the immovable properties mortgaged to the Bank as stated in the documents having reference to the mortgage documents/deed in
SCHEDULE ‘B’
Patta No. Dag Nos. Village Mouza Total lands (Area) 96 24, 51, 61, 62, 75, 79, 81, 119, 142, Maibelia Na- 55B-Ok-19L 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 210, 212, 213, 237, 270, 279, 318, 319, 327, 331, 332, 333, 378 Chakial Kachari 193 459, 460, 469, 520, 521, 522, 530, 582, Gharphalia Na 93B-2K-7L 583, 581, 579, 621, 623, 626, 650, 655, 656 Maibelia Kachari
1 518, 523, 535, 577, 578, 580, 584, 624, Gharphalia Na- 366B-2K-OL 625, 653, 654, 659, 660, 661, 717, 718, 729, 908, 1123. Maibelia Kachari Total 515B-OK-06L.
8. In response to the said notice, the petitioners raised objection by Annexure-12 letter dated 19.8.2006 and according to the petitioners, the objection has not been dealt with as has been emphasized by the Apex Court in the case reported in Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311.”
9. Mr. D.K Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.R Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners putting emphasis on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the entire action on the part of the respondent Bank is misconceived. On being asked as to whether the petitioners are ready to repay at least the principal amounts or evens 50% or 25% of the same, Mr. Mishra, upon instruction from his client submits that the petitioners are not in a position to make any payment. However, he emphasized on the pleas raised in the writ petition urging for stay of the impugned notice and any proceeding thereof.
10. On the other hand, Mr. A.C Borbora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Bank resist the writ petition on ground of being not maintainable, there being specific provision in the Act itself. As regards the objection in reference to section 31(i) of the Act, making reference to the agreement for loan executed by and between the parties, he submits that it is the movable and immovable properties including tea bushes and factory building, which are already mortgaged and charged and hypothecated to the Bank will continue to be so till the loan amount is liquidated. He disputes the claim of the petitioners that the security interest is created in agricultural land.
11. As regards the claim of the petitioners that the objection raised by it has not been dealt with, Mr. Borbora has produced the copy of the letter dated 28.8.2006, by which the objection of the petitioners as was raised against the impugned show cause notice by Annexure-12 letter dated 19.8.2006 has been dealt with and disposed of.
12. He further submits that the claim of the petitioners that the proceeding under the Act could not have been initiated simultaneously with the proceeding under the BPDR Act, 1913 is not tenable. He has also produced the copy of the letter dated 22.6.2006 issued by the Bank to the Bakijai Officer conveying the decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank to pursue its remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act of 2002 and requesting the Bakijai Officer not to proceed with the proceeding pending before it. This letter has been stated to be the intimation under section 34 of the Act.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on records. There is no dispute regarding the financial assistance obtained by the petitioners from the Bank. As per the notice under section 13(2), its liability is to the tune of Rs. 1,57,87,892.64 as on 31.5.2005 The notice further indicates its liability for further interest and incidental expenses and cost etc. The notice also clearly indicates the secured assets. On perusal of the schedules to the Bank as well as the copy of the agreement dated 24.5.2002 produced by Mr. Barbora, same do not indicate creation of any security interest in agricultural land so as to say that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are not applicable to the case in hand.
14. As regards the plea that two simultaneous proceedings one under the BPDR Act, 1913 and another under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, cannot proceed simultaneously, the Bank has made its position clear. Although as per the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the provisions of SARFAECI Act and the rules framed thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of the other Acts and/or any other law for the time being in force and that section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 shall have overriding effect, the Bank by its aforesaid letter dated 22.6.2006 addressed to the Bakijai Officer has made known its intention not to proceed with the Bakijai proceeding. Thus, the said proceeding and any order passed thereon do not have any effect and consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order passed by the Bakijai Officer has also become redundant.
15. The grievance raised in reference to the case of Mardia Chemicals (supra) in terms of which the objection raised in respect of the notice under section 13(2) of the Act is to be dealt with, is also not available to the petitioners in view of the fact that the Bank has already dealt with and disposed of the Annexure-12 objection dated 19.8.2006 by its aforesaid letter dated 28.8.2006, which reads as follows:
“THE ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD.
DEPARTMENT: — TEA LOAN RECOVERY
Ref: No. ACAB/HO/TEALOAN RECOVERY/RAM-AGRO/456/06/
Date 28.8.2006
Managing Director
Ram Agro Manufactures,
Lessee: Gohainbari T.E
Seuni Ali, Opposition: Akshaya Automobiles
A.T Road: Jorhat, Pin: 785635.
Sub: Notice under section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Ref.: Your letter dated 19.8.2006
Dear Sir,
With reference to the above subject and your letter under reference, we offer following reply as below.
(1) That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 2 of your objection, being incorrect, the same is incorrect and disputed. Tea Plantation does not fall under the agricultural land and as such invoking of provision of section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, does not attract in the instant case.
(2) That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 3 to 7 of your objection we had already intimated to Bakijai Officer, Kamrup, Metro, Guwahati vide our letter dated 22.6.2006 for withdrawal of the Bakijai case No. BPDR Case No. B-13/2005 for taking necessary action under SARFAESI Act. And pending of the appeal does not bar for taking any action SARFAESI Act, and as such we offer no comments on the probable outcome/finding in the appeal which is sub-judice.
(3) That with regard to the paragraph 8 of your objection, it is not correct as the said provision under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, is not attracted in the instant case.
(4) That with regard to the paragraph 9 and 10 of your objection, being incorrect, same is denied by us. We say that there is no illegality or infirmity in invoking the provisions under SARFAESI Act and as such question of withdrawal of notice is not acceptable as the same is within the parameters of law.
(5) That in respect of paragraph 11 to 13 being incorrect, same is denied and disputed by us. It is stated that the subject notices, have been issued as per existing legal provisions and guidelines and there is no absurd and untenable claim as averred by you and as such we call upon you to make the payment in terms of the subject notice(s) received by us.
(6) That in respect of paragraphs 14 and 15 we offer no comments.
Yours faithfully
General Manager
(Authorised Officer)
Tea Loan Recovery Deptt.”
16. From the above quoted letter, it will be seen that all the grounds urged by the petitioners both in the objection as well as in the writ petition have been dealt with. It has been categorically denied that the provisions of section 31(i) of the Act debars issuance of notice under section 13(2). Thus, the requirement to deal with the objection as envisaged under section 13(2) of the Act and emphasized in Mardia Chemicals (supra) has been complied with. Be it stated here that in the said decision, the Apex Court has upheld the provisions of the Act.
17. The impugned notice has been issued under section 13(2) of the Act in terms of which any borrower which is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4).
18. The bank has complied with the necessary requirements of section 13(2) of the Act. It has also dealt with the objection raised by the petitioners. Now upon failure to discharge their liability in full within the period specified in the notice, it will be open for the bank to take recourse to one or more of the measures as indicated in section 13(4) of the Act to recover the secured debt. In the event of being dissatisfied with the action taken under section 13(4), it will be open for the petitioners to prefer an appeal under section 17 of the Act. This statutory remedy cannot be bypassed invoking the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the stage has not yet ripened for initiating any proceeding. It is only at the notice stage and it will be open for the bank to take action as per the provision of the Act upon failure of the petitioners to comply with the requirement under section 13(2) of the Act.
19. Under somewhat similar circumstances, this court by judgment and order dated 13.9.2006 passed in Barak Valley Tea Company v. Union of India has dismissed the writ petition. In that case, the decision dated 2.2.2006 of the Madrass High Court in WP No. 250/2006 (D. Ravichand v. Manager, Overseas Bank) has also been referred to. In the decision of the Madras High Court which has been passed placing reliance on the earlier Division Bench judgment, it has been held that the writ petition of this nature is pre-mature as the case as in the instant case was only at the stage of section 13(2) notice. The said decision has also dealt with the term “agricultural land” within the meaning of section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
20. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition does not disclose any materials warranting interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It fails on all counts, i.e, the writ petition being pre-mature, there being statutory remedy of appeal in case of initiation of proceeding under section 13(4) of the Act and also on merit, in view of the own admission of the petitioner regarding its liability to the loan amount. In this connection, the observation of the Apex Court in Panjab National Bank v. O.C Krishnan, AIR 2001 SCW 2993 are quoted below:
“5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of mortgaged property was appellable under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (‘the Act’). The High court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under article 227 in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum.
6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under section 20 and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either taking recourse to proceedings under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly, oust the jurisdiction of the court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.”
21. Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert