Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for refund of interest wrongly charged by a bank in the absence of statutory provisions or contractual undertaking, as a civil suit is an efficacious alternate remedy.

V. G. PALSHIKAR, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioners have challenged realisation of certain amounts of money by way of interest by the respondent No. 1 Bank. The contention of the petitioner is that no such interest could have been charged in the absence of either statutory provisions or contractual undertaking. The charge of interest is therefore, void ab initio, it is liable to be quashed.

( 2 ) THE prayers read as under :"f/1. The respondent be directed not to charge interest from the petitioner No. 1 on the amount after the same has been realised by any of the branches of Respondent No. 1 till this advice in regard to the receipt of the amount is received by Respondent No. 2. F/2. The Respondent be directed to refund the petitioners the interest which is impugned in this writ petition charged from time to time. F/3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the circumstances of the case warrant may be passed in favour of the petitioner. F/4. The cost of this writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner. "

( 3 ) FROM the above prayers, it is obvious that the petitioner is seeking refund of money wrongly recovered from him. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked and should not be exercised to settle monitory claims which can be equally efficacious settled by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction is extraordinary jurisdiction meant for the purposes of administering quick justice in cases causing gross injustice. This very purpose of writ jurisdiction is consistently frustrated by filing writs indiscriminately for all kind of reliefs, even though, efficacious remedies before different forums are available. Filing of such writ petitions irrespective of the availability of other remedies which has resulted in for appealing arrears of writ petitions in the High Court with the results that expeditious disposal of petitions has become virtually impossible. It is because the High Court has to deal with the such petitions in nature of civil suits and adjudicated upon the question of interest that is properly charged or not in a money claimed that most of the time of High Court is consumed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in compelling circumstances. In fact filing of such writ petitions indiscriminately has converted the High Court in its writ jurisdiction to a civil Court.

( 4 ) RELIANCE was placed on certain decisions of the Supreme Court observing that Banks cannot charge interest on any sum of money, unless there is stipulation to that regard in the contract with the consumer or from some statutory provisions empowering the bank to do so. Relying on this case, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that charging of interest in the present case is void ab initio. There is no statutory provisions to warrant charging of recovery of such interest and hence, a writ in the nature of direction directing the bank to refund the interest illegally recovered is liable to issue. This relief, after showing these very decisions of the Supreme Court, could have been granted in the civil Court certainly earlier than now.

( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that charging of interest unless provided by law or by contract is impermissible. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 3054. The legal position in view of the Supreme Court judgment is that no such interest can be charged. The question is whether the charging should be declared illegal and refund should be directed by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution or the person concerned should go to a civil Court claiming refund of the interest wrongly charged. Relying on this very judgment of Supreme Court, it cannot be said in this case that civil suit for refund of the wrongly charged interest is not efficacious remedy.

( 6 ) IT is then contended that the action of charging interest is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and