In a significant judgment underscoring the importance of exhausting statutory remedies, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed two Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 2937 of 2024 and 569 of 2020). The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, emphasized the doctrine of alternate remedies and judicial restraint in the exercise of constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Case Background
The petitioner, Boddu Prasad Rao, challenged orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Visakhapatnam, in O.A. No. 98 of 2014 filed by the Punjab National Bank. The Tribunal had allowed the Original Application (O.A.) on August 18, 2017, due to the petitioner’s failure to present evidence. The petitioner subsequently filed M.A. No. 106 of 2017, seeking to condone a ten-day delay in filing a restoration application to set aside the O.A. order. This application was dismissed on January 10, 2020, on the ground that the O.A. was decided on merits and not ex parte.
The petitioner approached the High Court with the present Civil Revision Petitions, challenging the dismissal of the restoration application and condonation of delay.
Legal Issues and Observations
1. Alternative Remedy: The primary issue was whether the petitioner could directly approach the High Court under Article 227 without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
The court unequivocally held that Section 20 allows for an appeal to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) against any order passed by the DRT. The term “any order” includes orders rejecting applications for condonation of delay or setting aside ex parte orders. The bench referred to Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan (AIR 2001 SC 3208), where the Supreme Court mandated that alternative remedies must be availed before invoking constitutional provisions.
2. Ex Parte Nature of the Order: The petitioner contended that the DRT’s August 18, 2017 order was ex parte. However, the High Court clarified that this contention was irrelevant as the petitioner had multiple statutory remedies, including appeal and review, to challenge the order.
3. Judicial Restraint: The court emphasized judicial restraint, stating, “Judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when a statutory remedy is available.” This aligns with the Supreme Court’s stance in Satyawati Tondon v. Union of India and other cases, which deprecate the practice of bypassing statutory mechanisms.
The Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions, observing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying direct intervention. It noted, “The petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy, and no exceptional grounds were presented to warrant deviation from the settled principles.”
Representation
– Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Penjuri Venugopal
– Counsel for the Respondent (Punjab National Bank): Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava
