BIDULATA MAHARANA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the show cause notice under Section 13 (2) of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, the "securitization act") and other consequential reliefs. However, record of the case reveals that in respect of same subject matter the present petitioner has filed a suit being C. S. No. 179 of 2008, Bidulata Maharana v. Bank of India, in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar. The said suit is still pending. An application for interim relief, i. e. I. A. No. 247 of 2008 has also been filed which is still pending consideration before the said Court. In case the said suit is decreed, petitioner would get the reliefs claimed therein. Therefore, question does not arise as to whether at such stage particularly when the suit is pending, this Court should entertain the writ petition.

(2.) IN K. R. Rashid and Sons v. Income-tax investigation Commission and Ors. , AIR 1954 sc 207, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the issue involved herein that when the remedy under Section 8 (5) of the Taxation of Income-tax (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 has been pending whether the High Court could entertain the writ petition. The Hon'ble Apex court held that a person may choose/elect where it will proceed with the alternative remedy or with the writ petition, but both cannot be pursued simultaneously. The Court held as under :-

(3.) IN M/s. S. J. S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. , AIR 2004 sc 2421, the Court held that mere availability of alternative forum for appropriate relief does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the Writ Court to deal with the matter, itself if it is in a position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed.