AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order of this Court dated 21.4.2004 in W.P. No.10828 of
2004.
The appellant had taken a loan in connection with which the impugned recovery proceedings was issued. By the impugned interim order the
learned single Judge stayed the recovery on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.5,00,000/- within four weeks from the date of the order of the
learned single Judge.
In our opinion, unless some violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record is shown the High Court cannot interfere with
such recovery, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in S. Selvarani v. The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality and another 2005 W.L.R.
30.
It must be understood that there are certain settled principles for exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely
because the petitioner claims that he is suffering great hardship or deserves some pity. Unless some violation of law is shown merely on the ground
of hardship the High Court cannot interfere while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Because of this practice of
interfering, the recoveries by banks or financial institutions in tens or thousands crores of rupees which have been borrowed from such
banks/financial institutions, have been blocked by unjustifiable orders of the High Court in this country. In our opinion such orders were not at all
justified or proper unless there was some violation of law or error of law.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that even the impugned interim order dated 21.4.2004 should not have been passed and the writ
petition should have been straight away dismissed as not maintainable. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently WAMP Nos.3834,
7651 and 4186 of 2004 are closed.