Michael Diengdoh vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had availed a loan amounting to Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only from the Respondent Bank. The Respondent Bank in the year 2003 initiated recovery proceedings by filing a certificate of Rs. 6,24,999/- which was later re-calculated at Rs. 3,92,841/- before the Bakijai Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong for recovery of outstanding loan amount under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 2013 (As adapted by the State of Meghalaya). Thereafter, the said proceedings were put to challenge on the point of jurisdiction and the Bakijai Officer after hearing the parties dismissed the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The Respondent Bank thereafter preferred an appeal before the District Collector against the order of the Bakijai Officer. The District Collector after hearing the appeal, by order dated 22.08.2017, allowed the same by holding that the outstanding loan amount is a public demand recoverable under the provisions of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. Being aggrieved thereby, the learned counsel for the petitioner by this Court assailing the order dated 22.08.2017 mainly on the ground of jurisdiction.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

At the outset, Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, inasmuch as, he submits that after the statutory appeal, which has been availed by the petitioner under Section 51 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913, a revision against such orders will lie under Section 53 of the Act. As such, he submits that the writ petition being not maintainable in view of the availability of alternate remedy, the same should be dismissed at this stage itself.

Mr. H.R. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that as the point of jurisdiction is the main challenge in the writ petition, the petitioner had taken recourse to seek invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, had come before this Court.

I have perused Section 53 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913, and the same is reproduced herein below:

"53. (1) The Collector may revise any order passed by a Certificate Officer, Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector under this Act; the Commissioner may revise any order passed by a Collector under this Act; and the Board of Revenue may revise any order passed by a Commissioner under this Act.

(2) The period of limitation for an application for revision under this section shall be thirty days from the date of the order revision whereof is applied for excluding the time occupied in obtaining a copy of the order:

Provided that such an application for revision may be admitted after the period aforesaid if the applicant satisfies the Collector, the Commissioner or the Board, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the period."

It is noted that the Act provides for a revision against the orders passed under Section 51 and the same is to be presented before the Commissioner.

Having given my thoughtful consideration and in view of the stated position and availability of statutory remedy under the Act itself, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition at this stage.

However, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the instant writ petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum as provided under the Act. He however prays that he may be given some protection till such time the said revision is preferred.

Accordingly, this instant petition is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. However, in the interest of justice, it is further provided that till such time the said revision is preferred, no action will be taken by the Respondent Bank to execute the said certificate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further undertakes to prefer the revision within a period of 2(two) weeks from today. Prayer is allowed.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.