The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternative remedy, based on the peculiar facts of the case and the petitioner's long-standing grievance.

ORDER :

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

1. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ or writs in the nature of certiorari to quash the sale certificate dated 20.05.2014 issued in favour of the petitioner as he was declared as successful bidder in an e-auction conducted by the respondents-bank on 29.03.2014 for the sale of immovable property consisting of 200 decimals of land in Mouza Durga bearing plot no. 3120, Khata No. 17, P.S. No. 49 in the district of Bokaro.

He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents bank to return tender money of Rs.6,60,000/- along with an interest @ 18% per annum on the ground that in spite of the complete payment made by the petitioner, the respondents-bank has refused to register the land in the name of the petitioner and sitting over the matter since 2014. He has also prayed for a direction to pay compensation to him by the bank.

2. The facts of the case are mostly not in dispute. The petitioner is a businessman. He, in response to the e-auction conducted by the Bank of Baroda on 29.03.2014 for sale of immovable property consisting of 200 decimals as described above, participated in the e-auction process. He deposited sum of Rs. 64,000/-on 25.03.2014, as a pre-requisite condition for participation in the e-auction. The petitioner was declared as successful bidder and advised to deposit a sum equal to 25% of the total bid value of Rs. 6,60,000/-immediately. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 1,65,000/-through RTGS on 02.04.2014. A letter of demand was issued by the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda on 10.04.2014 for depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 4,31,000/-on or before 23.04.2014 i.e. equivalent of 75% of the sale of the auction price less the EMD amount. The petitioner complied the instructions given by the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda and paid the remaining amount on 21.04.2014 whereas, the deadline was 23.04.2014. After full payment of the tendered money the Bank of Baroda issued sale certificate regarding sale of land through e-auction in favour of the petitioner on 20.05.2014 and further gave commitment to the petitioner that very soon the sale deed for land in question will be registered in his name and all documents related to the land will be handed over to him at the earliest. The petitioner after issuance of sale certificate and thereafter failure on the part of the Bank to execute the sale deed, sent letters to the Chief Manager on several occasions but, it yielded no result, hence the writ petition was filed.

In the meantime, the petitioner has also approached the District Consumer Forum but, the same was dismissed and thereafter, preferred an appeal to the State Consumer Commission, which was withdrawn and the writ application has been filed.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed in this case.

4. The Bank has taken the plea that the writ petition has been preferred after the period of limitation to seek statutory remedy and is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy in approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi for redressal of his grievances. As far as the issue of registration of the sale certificate is concerned, the Bank takes the stand that the lawful cost of the same is to be paid by the petitioner and in absence of the deposit of all the lawful charges for registration, no registration of the sale could take place.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has been running from pillar to post for the past 9 years, even though he has become successful in the bid and in spite of his several representations to the Chief Manager, the registration has not been carried out in his name.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the requisite fee for registration, etc., has to be borne by the petitioner but, we do not find any letter of request or any communication from the side of the Bank addr