MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is a sheer abuse of the process of this Court.

( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner had taken a loan of rs. 25 lacs from the respondent/union Bank of India as far back as on 23. 9. 1989. In connection with the loan, recovery proceedings were instituted by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi which are still pending being OA No. 494/1996. This is the third writ petition in connection with the same matter. The first being Writ Petition (C) No. 9846/2003 was decided on 28. 9. 2004 and the second being Writ Petition (C) No. 1182/2005 which was decided on 22. 3. 2005.

( 3 ) THE Writ Petition (C) No. 9846/2003 was filed in this court claiming the benefit under the RBI guidelines dated 29. 2. 2003. This petition was disposed of by order dated 28. 9. 2004 directing the respondent bank to decide the petitioner s application, which was decided by the bank by its letter dated 14. 10. 2004 declaring the petitioner s account as non-performing asset from 1996 and informing him of the outstanding liability of Rs. 12. 75 lakhs and odd.

( 4 ) THE petitioner then filed WP (C) 1182/2005 in this Court challenging the aforesaid letter of the bank. This petition was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Chief General manager of the RBI stating her case, why and how his account was declared to be non-performing asset from 1990 and not 1996. The Court further directed the Chief general Manager to consider the said representation of the petitioner after putting the respondent Union bank under notice and seeking its version. Thereafter, the said representation was directed to be decided within one month.

( 5 ) THIS is thus the third writ petition by the petitioner, although the proceedings before the DRT are still pending before it. In our opinion, this writ petition is premature and its aim obviously is to obstruct the proceedings before the DRT.

( 6 ) IT is well settled that a writ lies only when the right of some party has been affected. In other words, a writ lies only when a cause of action has arisen. In the present case no right of the petitioner has been affected at present nor has any cause of action arisen and only proceedings before the Debt Recovery tribunal are going on. Even a recovery certificate has not been issued against the petitioner but she has rushed thrice to this Court by way of writ petitions. Thus, it is obvious that the whole aim of this petition and the previous two writ petitions was to block the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal so that no final order may be passed in the same.

( 7 ) IN our opinion, this writ petition is pre-mature and has been filed mala fide. If and when any final order is passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, then it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the DRT and only thereafter should she approach this court. She cannot short circuit these alternative remedies.

( 8 ) IN our opinion, this writ petition should not be entertained. The petitioner has abused the process of the Court and tried to block the proceedings before the debt Recovery Tribunal repeatedly. We cannot allow these kinds of dilatory tactics. It is well settled that writ is a discretionary remedy vide Chandra Singh v. State of rajasthan 2003 (6) S. C. C. 545 (para 43) and this is not a fit case of exercise of our discretion under Article 226.

( 9 ) IN Calcutta Gas Company Ltd. v. State of West bengal and Ors. AIR 1962 SC 1044 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed:

THE legal right that can be enforced under Article 32 must ordinarily be the right of the petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. We do not see any reason why an each principle should apply in the case of a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 10 ) SIMILARLY in State of Punjab and Anr. vs. Suraj prakash Kapur AIR 1963 SC 507 another Constitution Bench of the Supreme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document