9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l points on merits in their campaign against the impugned common order made by the first respondent but as this Court is not entertaining captioned WPs by applying the alternate remedy rule, it is deemed appropriate to not to embark upon the exercise of examining the same - It should be recorded that learned counsel for petitioners submitted that he is conscious of the alternate remedy rule and therefore, predicated his admission board campaign on the aforementioned 180 days point for consideration and in this view of the matter also, it is deemed appropriate to not to discuss the merits of the writ petitioners' campaign against the impugned common order. There is no cap as regards condonation. By saying no cap, it is meant that the Appellate Tribunal is not stifled when it comes to condonation of delay and any length of delay can be condoned. However, in the case on hand, adverting to the case file, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order has been received by the writ petitioners only on 06.02.2023 and captioned writ petitions have been filed in this Court on 20.03.2023. The captioned writ petitions are disposed of as closed albeit preserving all the rights and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... common order dated 27.01.2023; that 27.01.2023 is 180th day qua provisional attachment made on 01.08.2022 by the second respondent; that 27.01.2023 impugned order was made by the first respondent in a virtual hearing i.e., hearing on a videoconferencing platform; that it may not be necessary to delve further into facts for reasons already alluded to supra. 6. Mr.S.Baskaran, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners in the captioned four WPs submitted that the aforementioned impugned order dated 27.01.2023 made by the first respondent was communicated to the writ petitioners only on 31.01.2023 at 17:27 hours (05.27 pm) by way of an attachment to an electronic mail. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order was uploaded in the official website on 31.01.2023. Learned counsel adverting to the envelopes in which the impugned order was communicated to the writ petitioners submitted that the envelopes appear to have been despatched on 04.02.2023 as it has been received by addressees only on 06.02.2023. Learned counsel took us through the postal seal dated 06.02.2023 at Chennai and submitted that normally Speed Post with acknowledgment due is delivered within 48 hours and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.' 10.In K.C.Mathew case, relevant paragraph is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows: '10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCC pp.123 128, Paras 43 55) 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.' 13. Relevant paragraph in Greatship is Paragraph 16 and the same reads as follows: '16. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, referred to hereinabove, are concerned, the question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the question is about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal to consider all the points including the aforementioned 180 days point on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by this order, which is made for the limited purpose of testing the captioned four WPs in the admission Board. 17. Learned counsel at this juncture drew our attention to the limitation for approaching the Appellate Tribunal contained in sub-section (3) and proviso thereat of Section 26. A careful reading of sub-section (3) and proviso thereat makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal should be approached within 45 days from the date on which the impugned order is received by the appellant and the proviso is an enabling proviso which enables the Appellate Tribunal to condone delay and entertain an appeal beyond 45 days, i.e., after expiry of 45 days. 18. Be that as it may, we notice that there is no cap as regards condonation. By saying no cap, we mean that the Appellate Tribunal is not stifled when it comes to condonation of delay and any length of delay can be condoned. However, in the case on hand, adverting to the case file, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order has been received by the writ petitioners only on 06.02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
