Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R. Mayilan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, challenging an order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the first respondent, the Authorized Officer of City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam, through proceeding C.O/REC.NPA/2024-2025. The petitioner sought to quash the said order and to direct the first respondent to issue fresh proceedings against respondents 3 and 4, S. Thangabalu and B. Shanthi. The court, comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete, heard the matter at the admission stage with consent of both sides. The court observed that an effective remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and therefore, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not permissible. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged an order of the Authorized Officer of City Union Bank declaring the account as NPA. The court held that since an effective remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, invoking writ jurisdiction is not permissible. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the DRT. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an effective alternative remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
- Debts Recovery Tribunal
- Article 226
