IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.06.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.VIJAYA K.TAHILRAMANI, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.17459 of 2019

S.Killai Raveendran

.. Petitioner

Vs

1.The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Montieth Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

2.The Managing Director,

Central Bank of India,

Chander Mukhi Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021.

3.The Manager,

Reserve Bank of India,

Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

4.The Banking Ombudsmen,

Reserve Bank of India,

Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

5.The Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Killai & Post,

Chidambaram Taluk,

Cuddalore District.

6.K.Rajendra Ganesh,

The Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Killai & Post,

Chidambaram Taluk,

Cuddalore District.

7.The Inspector of Police,

Killai Police Station,

Killai, Cuddalore District.

.. Respondents

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st

and 2^nd respondents to take appropriate criminal and

departmental action as against the 6^th respondent for his

illegal acts of forgery and misusing his power by providing

agricultural loans for himself through Benami and to cancel

or revoke the possession notice dated 12.03.2019 on the

file of the 1^st

respondent based on petitioner's

representation dated 18.03.2019.

For Petitioner

: Mr.A.Prakash

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.Duraiswamy, J.)

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to

issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2

to take appropriate criminal and departmental action as

against the sixth respondent for his illegal acts of

forgery and misusing his power by providing agricultural

loans for himself through benami and to cancel or revoke

the possession notice dated 12.03.2019 on the file of the

first respondent based on the petitioner's representation

dated 18.03.2019.

2. Though the petitioner has sought for other reliefs,

the main relief is only with regard to the possession

notice dated 12.03.2019.

When the petitioner is

challenging the possession notice, he has got remedy by way

of an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “SARFAESI Act”)

before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner has

filed the present writ petition without exhausting the

alternate remedy available to him under the SARFAESI Act,

2002.

3. The Supreme Court in The Authorized Officer, State

Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C., reported in

(2018) 3 SCC 85 and Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs.

Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC

626 held that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge the

SARFAESI proceedings directly by filing a writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without

exhausting the appeal remedy available to them.

4. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in ICICI

Bank Limited v. Umakanta Mohapatra, reported in 2018 SCC

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Online SC 2349, the Supreme Court has referred to the

decision in Mathew K.C. case, referred supra, and has

observed that despite several judgments, including the

decision of Mathew K.C., supra, the High Courts continue to

entertain matters which arise under the SARFAESI Act and

keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are

Non-Performing Assets. Further, the Supreme Court held

that writ petition filed by the aggrieved party without

exhausting the statutory remedy available under the

SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and

Financial Institutions Act, is not maintainable.

5. Since the petitioner has filed the writ petition

without exha