Page 1

1

          REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 35 OF 2016

PRATIBHA RAMESH PATEL Appellant(s)

       Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s)

       J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This  writ  petition  under  Article  32  of  the  Constitution  of  India  is  filed  mainly  with  the  following prayers :-

(a) To declare that sections 2, 12 and  15(a)  of  the  Enforcement  of  Security  Interest  and  Recovery  of  Debts  Laws  (Amendment) Act, 2012, which has since been  notified on 3rd of January, 2013 and the said  Act to have brought into force as well on  15th January, 2013, as unconstitutional and  void since the said Act by amendment to the  Securitisation  and  reconstruction  of  Financial  Assets  and  Enforcement  of  Securities  Interest  Act,  2002  and  the  Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial  Institutions  Act,  1993,  has  brought  Multi  State Co-operative Society within the ambit  of SARFAESI ACT, 2002 and the RDDBFI Act,  1993 and that to further declare that the  (Amended) Act, 2012 as unconstitutional and  void for it is beyond the legislative domain  of the parliament to enact law concerning

Page 2

2

the  “co-operative  societies”  except  as  provided for under Articles 249, 250, 252  or253 of the constitution, and in doing so  in contravention of Article 245 and 246 read  with  Schedule  VII  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  has  trenched  into  the  exclusive  legislative domain of the State legislature,  nay,  had  inflicted  fatal  injury  to  the  federal structure of the constitution, which  constitute to be the very basic feature of  our constitution; (b) To declare that, between Securitisation  and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and  Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002  (as  amended)  and  the  Multi-State  Co- operative Societies Act, 2002, provisions of  the latter Act will prevail for recovery of  purported amount due to/from a Co-operative  Society or a Member or Borrower thereof and  vice versa, and that the former Act stands  ousted; (c) To  declare  that  Sections  2,  12  and  15(a)  of  The  Enforcement  of  Security  Interest  and  Recovery  of  Debts  Laws  (amendment) Act, 2012, inserting sub-section  2(c)(iva)  in  the  Securitisation  and  reconstruction  of  Financial  Assets  and  Enforcement  of  securities  Interest  Act,  2002, and sub-sections 2(d)(vi) and 19(1A)  in  Recovery  of  Debts  Due  to  Banks  and  Financial Institutions Act, 1993, passed by  the Parliament, is unconstitutional inasmuch  as  by  the  said  amendment  a  Co-operative  Society, is sought to be brought within the  purview of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; (d) issue  a  writ  in  the  nature  of  certiorari or certiorarified prohibition or  any  other  appropriate  writ  or  order  or  direction,  quashing  and  setting  aside  the  notice dated 7.10.2013 issued by Respondent  Bank  under  Section  13(2)  of  the  Securitisation  and  Reconstruction  of  Financial  Assets  and  Enforcement  of  Securities Interest Act, 2002 and the order  of the Ld. District Magistrate, Thane, dated  10.04.2015  in  Case  No.  88/2014,  Ld.  Tahsildar,  Thane  Notice  No.  revenue/Room- 1/T-1/Criminal/Vashi/7268/2015/dated  30.04.2015  and  the  two  Possession  Notices

Page 3

3

dated  10.12.2015  vide  Ref.  No.  Criminal/201/2015  and  Ref.  No.  Criminal/202/2015  issued  by  Divisional  Official,  Belapur,  (Annexure  “P2”  and  Annexure “P3”) as without jurisdiction, in  violation  of  the  principles  of  natural  justice,  section  91  and  91A  of  the  Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960  (XXIV of 1961) and section 84 of the Multi  State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and  hence  null  and  void  ab  initio  and  by  an  order of injunction or prohibition restrain  the  Respondent  Bank,  its  officers,  men,  agents  and  privies  from  in  any  manner  interfering with the peaceful possession and  enjoyment  of  the  petitioner's  properties,  which  the  Respondent  Bank  claims  to  be  a  secured  asset  at  its  hands  and,  in  particular,  from  dispossessing  the  petitioner of her residential home under the  purported  powers  under  Section  13  of  the  SARFAESI Act, 2002; (e) To  declare  that  the  notice  dated  7.10.2013 purportedly under Section 13(2) of  the  Securitisation  and  Reconstruction  of  Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security  Interest Act, 2002, and impugned order of  the Ld. District Magistrate, raigad, Alibag  dated 30/06/2014 (Annexure “P1” purportedly  under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002  in Case No. 18/2014 as null and void, being  in violation of the principles of natural  justice; (f) To issue an appropriate writ, order or  direction,  declaring  that  the  respondent  banks  which  are  guilty  of  breach  of  contract,  civil  breach  of  trust,  culpable  negligence,  and  malicious  and  tortuous  action and therefore no right or title has  inured in them to invoke sections 5, 6 and 7  much less section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,  2002,  and  that  in  any  scenario  the  respondent banks are duty bound to afford an  opportunity  of  being  heard  to  the  petitioner/her Company before an assignment  of  the  'security  interest'  as  defined  in  section  2(zf)  of  the  SARFAESI  Act,  2002,  which it falsely claim to be existing in its  favour to any securitization companies and  further that such an obligation, to observe

Page 4

4

the principles of natural justice, is liable  to be read into sections 5, 6 and 7 of the  SARFAESI  Act,  2002  and  in  particularly  section 6 thereof. (g) issue  a  writ  of  prohibition  or  any  other appropriate writ or order restraining  and prohibiting the respondents its agents,  servants  and  privies  from  classifying  the  account of the petitioner or her Company as  willful  defaulter  and  proceeding  in  any  manner  or  take  recourse  to  any  judicial  proceedings either by way of institution of  a petition as against the petitioner company  or  by  taking  recourse  to  the  statutory  powers vested in them under section 13 of  the  SARFAESI  Act,  for  to  permit  the  respondent  Bank  to  do  so  would  amount  to  multiplicity of proceedings, and further to  restrain  and  prohibit  the  Respondent  Bank  from  taking  recourse  to  any  precipitatory  steps  including  assignment  of  the  petitioner's  property  to  any  Asset  Reconstruction Company; (h) issue  a  writ  of  prohibition  or  any  other appropriate writ or order restraining  and prohibiting the respondents, its agents,  servants  and  privies  from  in  any  manner  interfering with the peaceful possession and  enjoyment  of  the  properties  of  the  petitioner/petitioner's  company  or  the  purported borrowers and purported guarantors  which the Respondent Bank falsely claim to  be  secured  assets  at  its  hands  and  in  particular proceeding any further pursuant  to  the  notice  dated  7.10.2013  purportedly  under  Section  13(2)  of  the  Securitisation  and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and  Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002,  and  impugned  order  of  the  Ld.  District  Magistrate,  dated  30/06/2014  purportedly  under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002  in Case No. 18/2014. (i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus  or  any  other  appropriate  writ,  order  or  direction, to the Respondent Bank/Authorised  Officer to state on affidavit the source of  his authority to invoke Section 13 of the  Securitisation  and  Reconstruction  of  Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Page 5

5

Interest Act, 2002 and to produce a copy of  the Resolution, if any, passed by the Board  of Directors of the Respondent Bank by which  he was appointed as an authorized officer to  exercise the function under Section 13(2) of  the  Securitisation  and  Reconstruction  of  Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security  Interest  Act,  2002  and  the  Security  Interest. (j) pass  any  other  order  or  orders  which  this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper  under  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case as also in the interest of justice as  the nature and circumstances of the case may  require.”

3. The petitioner has filed another writ petition  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before  the  High  Court  of  Bombay,  literally  with  the  same  prayers.  In the said writ petition, on 30th October,  2015,  the  High  Court  passed  the  following  interim  order :-

“Not on Board.  Mentioned. 2.Having  heard  Mr.  Nedumpara,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  and  since  our  attention  is  invited  to  the  communication  at  pages  59  and  60  of  the  paper book, we pass the following order :- i. Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 and  2 returnable on 4th December, 2015. ii. On the condition that the petitioner  deposits  a  sum  equivalent  of  50%  of  the  amount claimed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2  with Respondent No.1 Bank on or before 3rd  December, 2015 and without prejudice to its  rights and contentions, there would be ad- interim order restraining Respondent Nos. 1  and 2 and respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8  from  enforcing  and  executing  the  order  passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act  in Case No. 18 of 2014.

Page 6

6

iii. If the amount as mentioned above, is  not  deposited  on  or  before  3rd December,  2015, the ad-interim order to stand vacated  without any further reference to the Court. 3. Needless  to  clarify  that  this  order  and direction is without prejudice to the  rights and contentions of  all parties.”

4. Admittedly, the said order was not complied with  and therefore, interim order stood vacated. But the  writ petition having been admitted by the Court is  still pending before the High Court.

5. In the writ petition filed under Article 32 of  the  Constitution  of  India,  before  this  Court,  the  petitioner  has,  no  doubt,  disclosed  filing  of  the  writ petition before the High court at paragraph 39.  To  the  extent  relevant,   the  statement  reads  as  follows :-

“The  petitioner  instituted  the  petition  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  seeking  a  declaration  that  the  measures  under  Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act,  2002 are void ab initio.  The Hon'ble High  Court,  Bombay  was  pleased  to  admit  the  said Writ Petition.  Though the Hon'ble  High Court, Bombay, was pleased to admit  the  said  Writ  Petition   it  was  not  inclined  to  stay  the  proceedings  under  Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act,  2002  unconditionally.   The  Hon'ble  High  Court was pleased to grant an injunction,  however,  the  condition  subject  to  which  the  interim  injunction  was  granted  was  erroneous that the petitioner was unable  to comply with the same.  Considering the  larger  issue,  the  petitioner,  has

Page 7

7

instituted the instant Writ Petition under  Article 32 of the Constitution of India  before this Hon'ble Court....”

6. In  I.A.  No.2  of  2016,  the  Respondent  No.2  has  produced copy of the Writ Petition No. 3145 of 2015 filed  by the writ petitioner before the High Court of Bombay. 7. We have gone through the pleadings in both the writ  petitions. 8. Virtually, the writ petition filed before this Court  is  a  true  copy  of  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  before the High Court except for the disclosure of the  pendency  of  the  writ  petition  and  some  other  minor  changes. 9. What is revealed from what we have narrated above is  certainly shocking.  The petitioner having filed a writ  petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India,  the  writ  petition  having  been  admitted by the Court, the High Court having granted an  inter  im  order  which  has  worked  itself  out  and  the  petition is still pending before the High Court, filing a  writ  petition  under  Article  32  of  the  Constitution  of  India before this Court is nothing but an abuse of process  of the Court, if not misuse. 10. Having  invoked  a  constitutional  remedy  before  the  High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,  the petitioner cannot, under Law, file another petition

Page 8

8

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on identical  set of facts for identical reliefs. 11. In  the  above  circumstances,  this  writ  petition  is  dismissed  with  costs  of  Rs.1,00,000/-  (rupee  one  lakh  only)  to  be  deposited  with  the  Supreme  Court  Legal  Services committee within four weeks.  

           ........................J.                      (KURIAN JOSEPH)

                 ........................J.                   (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, March 09, 2016

Page 9

9

ITEM NO.3               COURT NO.10               SECTION X                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil)  No(s).  35/2016 PRATIBHA RAMESH PATEL                              Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                            Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for stay and vacating stay and office report) Date : 09/03/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s)

Mr. A.C. Philip, Adv.                      Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv.                      Mr. Anjan Sinha, Adv. For Respondent(s)

Mr. Rajeev K. Pandaya, Adv.                      Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Adv.                                 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

This  writ  petition  is  dismissed  with  costs  of  Rs.1,00,000/- (rupee one lakh only) to be deposited with the  Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks in  terms of the signed reportable judgment.  

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

 [RENU DIWAN]     [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR]   COURT MASTER             A.R.-CUM-P.S. (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)