Judgment · High Court

(SHRI BIPIN KUMAR SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .....PETITIONER AND SHAKHA PRABANDHAK UJJAWAN SMALL FINANCE BANK PLOT 17A, TAL AND PRATHAM MANJIL, BAMRU COLONY, TEMPO STAND KE PASS, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT) This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT .....RESPONDENT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following: Heard on the question of admission. ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to the respondent no.1 to regularize the account of petitioner and to accept the outstanding amount under the one time settlement scheme. 2 . In the considered opinion of this Court, this petition is not maintainable as respondent/company is not "State" within the meaning of Article Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/10/2023 6:07:51 PM 2 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. On this ground also, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

#3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidhya Mandir and Others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 345 has held that if proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, the borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Earlier also, this issue was dealt with by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (at Gwalior) in W.P. No. 8074/2016. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 21.11.2016 holding that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a private bank. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld by the learned Division Bench in W.A. No. 54/2017.

#4. Taking into consideration, the settled legal position, this petition against a private company is not maintainable, therefore, does not call for interference by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

#5. The petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. However, petitioner is free to approach the competent authority seeking redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/10/2023 6:07:51 PM