2002 Supreme(MP) 37

A.K. Mishra, J.
M.L. Chaurasia v. Tahsildar, Balaghat
W.P. No. 6630 of 2001 (J); Decided on 4.1.2002.

Headnote:Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1987 (M.P.) -- S. 3 -Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. 1993 -- Ss. 17 and 18 -- jurisdiction under the State Act is not barred by provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the Central Act. -- provisions under both the Acts are not overlapping.

       

        yksd /ku ¼"kks/; dh olwyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1987 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 3 & cSadksa vkSj foRrh; laLFkkvksa dks ns; _.k dh olwyh vf/kfu;e] 1993 & /kkjk 17 rFkk 18 & jkT; vf/kfu;e dh vf/kdkfjrk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 rFkk 18 ds mica/kksa ds v/khu oftZr ugha gS & nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa ds v/khu mica/k ijLij O;kih ugha gSA

        Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no Court or authority has jurisdiction to issue Land Revenue Recovery Certificate in view of section 17 read with section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and there is specific bar under the said provisions. The challenge of the petitioner is to a recovery initiated under section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (Act No.1 of 1988). Certain loan was advanced to the petitioner and Revenue Recovery Certificate-overdraft was also drawn. Land Revenue Certificate amounting to Rs. 40,60,000/- has been received. Recovery of which is being made under the Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987.

        The reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition is to the following effect : It is, therefore, prayed that this Honble Court be pleased to :

       

       (i) issue a writ in nature of writ of certiorari for quashing Annx. P-l and further to declare that respondents 1, 3 and 4 have absolutely no legal authority or jurisdiction to proceed with recovery process under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987, as the same is barred under Central Act;

       (ii) to grant any other relief deemed proper to the facts and circumstances of the case.

        Section 17 and 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are reproduced as below :

       "17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals -- (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions.

       (2) An appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act.

       18. Bar of jurisdiction -- on and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in section 17".

        Bare reading of section 17 makes it clear that jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to decide the applications filed by the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to a bank and financial institutions and that power and jurisdiction is barred to be exercised by any Court or other authority as per section 18. The jurisdiction conferred under section 17 on the Tribunal is ousted from the jurisdiction of the Court or other authority. The matters enumerated in section 17 are barred. Under section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987, certificate of recovery can be sent directly for the recovery to the authorities mentioned therein which by itself recoverable. Jurisdiction of M.P. Act cannot be said to ousted in any manner by sections 17 and 18 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The said Act does not oust the jurisdiction in any manner which is to be exercised under section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987. Then is no overlapping between these two provisions. This Court in New Laxmi Oil Mills v. Bank of India [1998 (1) JLJ 154 = AIR 1998 MP 161], examined the competence of the State to enact the law and the provisions of M.P. Act have been held to be intra-vires.

        Thus the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the Act itself stands inoperative by the provisions of section 18 read with section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 cannot be accepted.

       

        The provisions of two Acts are independent and there is no overlapping between these two Acts, the jurisdication of the recovery of money by the Recovery Officer under M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 Act, is not ousted by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

        The writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed.

        C.C. as per rules.