Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner - State Bank of India has sought the following relief: i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned proclamation of sale dated 18.2.2011 (Annexure -5) issued by the Respondent No. 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and be further pleased to declare that the Respondents are not having any authority to auction the properties in dispute as they do not belong to the Assessee company but belong to the guarantors/owners who have created equitable mortgage in favour of the Petitioner bank. ii) By further appropriate writ, order or direction, the communication dated 8.6.2010 issued by the Respondent No. 3 may also be declared as null and void as the same has been issued under misconception treating the properties to be of M/s. Udai Edible Oil Products Limited. iii) Or any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the Petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv) Cost of the litigation may kindly be granted to the Petitioner.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner - Bank and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the Petitioner -Bank sanctioned credit facility to M/s. Kundan Edible Products Limited (presently known as M/s. Uday Edible Products Limited) to the tune of 32.45 crores of rupees. The Petitioner also gave one ad -hoc FLC limit of 4.00 crores to the said company for a period of three months. The company failed to maintain the financial discipline as per terms of the loan agreement and the account was classified as NPA. The Petitioner issued a notice under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (here -in -after to be referred to for short as "Act of 2002") to the borrowers. In the meantime, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B, Bhiwadi raised a demand of Rs. 14,38,98,755/ - against the company M/s. Uday Edible Products Limited and issued a proclamation of sale dated 18.2.2011. The Petitioner -bank has implored to quash and set -aside the said proclamation of sale dated 18.2.2011. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that the land with regard to proclamation of sale has been issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi does not belong to the company Uday Edible Products Limited, on the contrary this property belongs to the guarantors of the company, who mortgaged the same with the bank. Hence the operation of proclamation of sale deserves to be stayed, in the interest of justice.
(3.) AT the very outset, it is relevant to record that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not required to determine the ownership of the land. The Petitioner bank cannot be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction imploring this Court to decide the ownership of the land nor can he be allowed to pray this Court under Article 226 restraining the Commercial Taxes Officer from realising the taxes due to the company. If the Petitioner -bank is aggrieved with the proclamation order issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi, the same can be impugned by way of filing an appeal under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and if the Petitioner feels further aggrieved with the order rendered by First Appellate Court, he can file second appeal under Section 85 of the Act before the Tax Board. The alternative efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved Petitioner -bank and unless the alternative efficacious remedy is exhausted, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.;