The main legal point established is the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Bank to issue possession and sale notices, and the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the availability of alternative remedy.

1. HEARD.

2. IN the present writ petition, the following main prayer has been made:

"1. That Annexure P-5 and P-6 may kindly be quashed and set aside by declaring them as, may be declared as without jurisdiction."

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

Vide Annexure P-5, the possession notice has been issued by the Authorized Officer of the H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and vide Annexure P-6, dated 29.11.2012, sale notice has been issued by the District Manager of District Manager of H.P. State Co- operative Bank Ltd. to the respondents.

3. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in (2007) 6 SCC 236, Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. versus United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and others. Para-98 of the said judgment reads as follows:

"The field of cooperative societies cannot be said to have been covered by the Central Legislation by reference to Entry 45, List 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Cooperative banks constituted under the Cooperative Societies Acts enacted by the respective States would be covered by cooperative societies under Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India."

As such, the authority has no jurisdiction to issue such notice.

4. ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-bank has relied upon the judgment rendered in (2010) 8 SCC 110, United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon & others. In para-55 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed as follows:

"It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection."

The learned Counsel for the respondent- bank has further submitted that in view of the judgment rendered in (2011) 2 SCC 782, Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & others versus State of Maharashtra & others, the writ petition is not maintainable, as effective alternate remedy was available to the petitioner.

5. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment rendered in (2007) 6 SCC 236, Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. versus United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and others is the three Judge Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereas the subsequent judgments are Division Bench Judgments of the Supreme Court, as such, the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank's judgment is to be applied in the present case.

6. WE are afraid that the facts and circumstances of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner are different and distinguishable and the said judgment does not deal the issues which have been subsequently dealt with by the Supreme Court.

Whereas, the judgment passed in United Bank of India' case is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the petitioner is free in highlighting his grievances for redressal and has alternative remedy.

7. IN these circumstances, without expressing anything on merit, the writ petition is not maintainable, as such, it stands dismissed.

8. PENDING application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.