Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Bhandari vs Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited on 29 June, 2022
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 4964 of 2021
1. Santosh Bhandari S/o Premchand Bhandari Aged About 49 Years R/o C-53,
Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited Through Its Authorised Officers,
Registered Officer At Indian Rayon Compound, Verawal, Gujarat 362266
Branch Office At 404, 4th Floor, Camac Square, 24, Camac Street, Lolkata
700016
2. The Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Tehsildar, District Raipur, Collectorate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Naib Tehsildar, District Raipur, Collectorate, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Mishra Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 29.06.2022
1. The Challenge in the present writ petition was to the order of the District Magistrate Raipur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
2. The present writ petition was entertained by this Court in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted the High Courts to entertain the writ petitions in respect of matters which were otherwise to be heard and 2 decided by the DRT and DRATs.
3. The said order was passed in the context of the DRT and DRAT not being functional on account of non-availability of a regular presiding Officer. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, had granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 03.12.2021.
4. It is being informed by the Counsel for the parties that the petitioner had approached the DRT before filing of the writ petition and has approached only on account of the DRT being not functional. Since 21.02.2022, the DRT Bench Jabalpur has started functioning and the SA which has been filed by the petitioner before the DRT can now be heard and decided on merits by the DRT itself,
5. In view of the same, this High Court would no longer have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and decide the issue involved in the said case.
6. Reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the concerned DRT ventilating his grievance, the writ petition accordingly stands disposed of and the interim order granted earlier would also stand vacated.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyoti