Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Collector/ District Magistrate on 12 September, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46922
1 WP-27363-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 27363 of 2024
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
Versus
COLLECTOR/ DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.D. Padaraha, Government Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Heard about the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this present petition seeking direction to the parties to approach the Administrative Machinery for Resolution of CPSE Dispute (in short: AMRCD) for the purpose of settlement and till then no coercive step be taken to take possession of the mortgaged property. The petitioner is also challenging a letter dated 22.08.2024 written by Tahsildar to respondent No.3 to 6 to take possession of the mortgaged property in compliance with the order passed by the District Magistrate under the provision of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( In short "SARFAESI" Act, 2002").
The facts of the case in short are as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 17-09- 2024 19:06:43NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46922
2 WP-27363-2024
2. The petitioner is a Public Sector undertaking of the Union of India engaged in the business of sale of petroleum products through licensed retail outlets all over the country. Respondent No. 3 was granted a licence by the petitioner to sell petroleum products by establishing a retail outlet on its land. As per the terms and conditions of the license respondent No.3 mortgaged its land to the petitioner by entering into a registered lease.
3. Respondent No.3 took a loan/financial assistance from respondent No.2/Bank by mortgaging this leased-out land in question. Due to non- payment of the loan amount, the loan account of respondent No.3 was declared NPA by the bank. Thereafter the bank initiated the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by filing an application before the District Magistrate Bhopal to get a vacant possession of the petrol outlet. The petitioner immediately submitted an objection that the land had been leased out by the borrower/ respondent No. 3. The District Magistrate passed an order dated 01.02.2021 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner came to know that the Tehsildar was going to take physical possession of the property in question and immediately approached before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.4074/2021, however, initially the interim order was passed but later the Writ Petition was disposed off vide order dated 4th July, 2022 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT by way of Securitization application.
4. The petitioner approached the learned DRT along with an application for interim relief. Vide order dated 21.07.2023, the learned DRT has granted interim protection to the petitioner till the validity period of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 17-09- 2024 19:06:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46922 3 WP-27363-2024 lease i.e. 31.03.2024.
5. Now the period of the lease has expired; therefore, the Tehsildar has again initiated proceedings for taking the physical possession of the mortgaged property. Hence, the petitioner has rushed to this Court in order to get interim relief. Shri Rahul Jain learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to repay the loan amount to the bank to save this retail outlet and if this proposal is not acceptable to the bank than, there is a provision of resolution of dispute between two Central Government authorities under the Administrative Machinery for Resolution of CPSE Dispute (AMRCD) which can be invoked in this matter. Hence the petitioner is seeking a writ in nature of mandamus directing the Bank of Baroda to consider the request for settlement of the dispute with the petitioner before the said forum.
We have heard Shri Jain, Advocate for the petitioner at length.
6. The only issue which requires consideration is whether it would be proper for the High Court to interfere at this stage in this matter when the learned Tribunal has already seized the matter by way of S.A.623/2022. Vide order dated 21.07.2023, the interim protection was granted to the petitioner till the validity of the lease period i.e. 31.03.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner has not taken any steps to get the lease period extended with respondent . Secondly, the petitioner has also not challenged the aforesaid interim order by way of appeal before the DRAT that the period fixed by the DRT was not the correct approach of the law. Thirdly the petitioner has not filed any application before the DRT seeking further extension interim relief. Now the interim order dated 21.07.2023 has attained finality by which the stay was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 17-09- 2024 19:06:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46922 4 WP-27363-2024 granted for a limited period and that had already expired. The petitioner is not challenging the said order even in this Writ Petition.
7. In view of the above, after the expiry of the period of interim relief the respondent No.2-Bank of Baroda is justified in auctioning the property. At the most, the petitioner may participate in the auction proceedings, if the petitioner is interested in the mortgaged property. The Bank cannot be directed to accept the entire loan amount from the petitioner and hand over the mortgaged property because the Bank is bound to follow the procedure under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by selling the property by way of auction. Respondent No.3 is a registered owner of the mortgaged property hence the bank can either return the mortgaged property to the registered owner or the petitioner the auction purchaser as the case may be. Now the petitioner is no longer the lessee of the property in question and therefore not entitled to seek a writ of mandamus from the High Court.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of substance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time: 17-09-
2024 19:06:43