SHIV NARAIN TEWARI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Petitioner had taken loan from U. P. Financial Corporation for establishing a factory in the name and style of M/s. Nisha Oil Udyog village Shah Tahsil and District Fatehpur for producing mustard oil. M/s. Nisha Oil Udyog is not a registered body and the petitioner is its sole proprietor. Loan of the Corporation not having been paid in accordance with the agreement, recoveiy proceedings for recovering the loan as arrears of land revenue were initiated and in pursuance therefore bus number UPO 3327 belonging to the petitioner was attached by [its actual seizure on 22-8-1990 and it was sold on 6-9-1990 by a public auction to Sri Ghanshyam, respondent no. 8 for a sum of Rs. 1,75000/- and this amount having been deposited by the respondent no. 8, sale was completed and sale certificate was issued in his favour who was also given its possession.

(2.) PETITIONER had first filed a writ petition no. 21900 of 1990 In the name of M/s. Nisha Oil Udyog through himself as proprietor for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to supply necessary notices of the outstanding amount and for quashing the entire recovery proceedings. After the bus was auctioned on 6-9-1990 the petitioner filed another writ petition no. 23120 of 1990 in his own name for quashing of attachment auction sale of the bus in favour of respondent no. 8. At the admission stage, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard Sri S.K. Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.R. Mishra learned counsel for the Corporation and also learned Standing counsel and the writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court.

(3.) THE bus in question was attached on 22-8-1990 by its actual seizure. It was open to the petitioner to file objection under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC but he did not do so, even though admittedly he had full knowledge of the actual seizure of the bus on the aforesaid date. Sale proclamation was also prepared after observing all the formalities and allegations made by the petitioner against the sale proclamation have been denied. THE petitioner could have raised objection against sale proclamation also, but he did not do so. Petitioner also did not raise any objection at the time when auction sale was conducted and even thereafter before the officer who conducted the sale. THE auction purchaser, respondent no. 8 deposited the auction money and sale of the bus became absolute in his favour end he became its owner. Not having raised any objection at any stage of the proceedings, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the recovery proceedings before this court for the first time. When law provides forum and the method for redress of the grievance, the affected person concerned should take recourse to these forum and the methods and it is not open to him to bye-pass them and straight away file the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As mentioned herein before the respondent no. 8 has become absolute owner of the bus after he deposited the auction money and he has also been delivered its possession along with sale certificate. We cannot undo the sale under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby depriving the auction purchaser of the right which he acquired lawfully without any objection from the side of the petitioner. We are as such not inclined to interfere in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.