Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pradesh vs District Collector And Others on 24 November, 2021
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
.
ON THE 24th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
Between:
r to
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 7356 of 2021
JITENDER SHARMA, S/O SH. DAULAT
RAM, VPO GULLU, P.O. JAIS,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
......PETITIONER
(BY MR. MOHAN SHARMA,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HIMACHAL PRADESH GRAMIN BANK,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
OFFICIAL/PRINCIPAL OFFICER/ZONAL
MANAGER AT ITS HEAD OFFICE, JAIL
ROAD, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH-
171009.
2. HIMACHAL PRADESH GRAMIN BANK,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH
MANAGER/CHIEF MANAGER AT ITS
BRANCH SITUATED AT DHALLI AT
KAMLANAGAR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
...RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:39 :::CIS
-2-
.
(BY MS DEVYANI SHARMA,
ADVOCATE.)
____________________________________________________
This petition coming on for admission this day,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, passed the following:
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by Jitender Sharma, praying for a direction to the respondent-Bank to extend time period provided in the One Time Settlement arrived at between them, whereby the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 97.75 lacs till 2nd of November, 2021, but he failed to do so.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted reasonable time to make the payment of the One Time Settlement.
3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner himself came out with an offer and accepted the One Time Settlement, but even then, he failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the One Time Settlement and ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:39 :::CIS -3- to deposit the due amount. She also submits that the petitioner .
had agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 97.75 lacs as against the total amount of Rs. one crore 30 lacs. She further submits that symbolic possession of the property in question has already been taken and actual possession is likely to be taken over by tomorrow. She further submits that the writ petition may not be entertained since the petitioner has an alternative remedy. She has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled as C Bright versus District Collector and others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 392 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1365 of 2020, titled as Mehar Chand versus State of H.P. & others and the various judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon therein. She also submits that in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh.
4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, that as of now, none of the aforesaid three Debt ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:39 :::CIS -4- Recovery Tribunals at Chandigarh, are functional as the posts .
of the Presiding Officers in the aforesaid Tribunals are lying vacant. Earlier the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal had passed the order authorizing the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jaipur for entertaining the extremely urgent matters, but later on the said order was withdrawn. It is argued that this Court had been entertaining the writ petitions of similar nature.
He further submits that the parties were required to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, but now, the term of the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has also expired on 30th October, 2021, therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach this Court. He further submits that the petitioner is agreeable to pay the amount of Rs.
25.00 lacs within one week from today and the remaining amount within one month thereafter. He prays that the respondent-Bank may be directed to consider the request of the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount within the aforementioned period as he has sold out two flats and is likely to receive the sale proceeds within the aforesaid period.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:39 :::CIS -5-5. Having regard to the peculiar facts and .
circumstances of this case, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall make an application before the respondent-Bank for seeking extension of one month for depositing the amount of One Time Settlement and offering to pay not only this amount, but also the interest for the period of delay within one week. The application, so submitted by the petitioner, shall be accompanied by a demand draft of Rs. 25.00 lacs, which shall be transmitted to the account of the respondent-Bank. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the respondent-Bank that he shall deposit the remaining amount with interest as per the terms of the loan documents for the period of delay, within one month from the date of submission of the said application. The process for taking over the possession of the property mortgaged with the respondent-
Bank shall remain suspended for the aforesaid period of one month and one week. In the event of the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the aforementioned conditions, it would be open for the respondents to go ahead with the originally initiated ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:39 :::CIS -6- process and take possession of the property in question and .
proceed further, in accordance with law.
6. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Copy dasti.
r to ( Mohammad Rafiq )
Chief Justice
( Sabina )
Judge
November 24, 2021
(hemlata)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:39 :::CIS