Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 321
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN
M/s.KNS Saw Mill - Appellant
Versus
The Authorised Officer - Respondents
W.A. No. 2084 of 2004
Decided On : 22 February 2005
Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely on the grounds of hardship and there must be a violation of law shown for the High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Recovery Proceedings - Interim Order - The court held that unless there is a violation of law or an error of law apparent on the face of the record, the High Court cannot interfere with recovery proceedings. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely on the grounds of hardship and that there must be a violation of law shown for the High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had taken a loan and the recovery proceedings were stayed by an interim order of the learned single Judge on the condition that the petitioner pays Rs.5,00,000 within four weeks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned interim order should not have been passed and the writ petition should have been dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues: Violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record, exercise of writ jurisdiction, interference with recovery proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely on the grounds of hardship and that there must be a violation of law shown for the High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded. Consequently, certain other related matters were closed.
Markandey Katju, CJ.
This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order of this Court dated 21.4.2004 in W.P. No.10828 of 2004.
2. The appellant had taken a loan in connection with which the impugned recovery proceedings was issued. By the impugned interim order the learned single Judge stayed the recovery on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.5,00,000/- within four weeks from the date of the order of the learned single Judge.
3. In our opinion, unless some violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record is shown the High Court cannot interfere with such recovery, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in S.Selvarani v. The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality and another (2005 Writ L.R. 30).
4. It must be understood that there are certain settled principles for exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely because the petitioner claims that he is suffering great hardship or deserves some pity. Unless some violation of law is shown merely on the ground of hardship the High Court cannot interfere while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Because of this practice of interfering, the recoveries by banks or financial institutions in tens or thousands crores of rupees which have been borrowed from such banks/financial institutions, have been blocked by unjustifiable orders of the High Court in this country. In our opinion such orders were not at all justified or proper unless there was some violation of law or error of law.
5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that even the impugned interim order dated 21.4.2004 should not have been passed and the writ petition should have been straight away dismissed as not maintainable. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently WAMP Nos.3834, 7651 and 4186 of 2004 are closed.
