Keshav Uddhav Patil Thr Poa Hiralal Makkan Patil vs. The Recovery Officer The Moti Urban Cooperative Bank LTD And Another

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary reason for dismissal was the existence of an alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. The Court was of the opinion that the petitioner had approached the High Court with the intention of avoiding the deposit of an amount and had not availed the available alternate remedy. The Court also considered the petitioner's reliance on the Apex Court's decision in M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, but found it inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Keshav Uddhav Patil, through his Power of Attorney Holder Hiralal Makkan Patil, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. The respondents were the Recovery Officer, The Moti Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., and another. The petitioner sought to challenge an order or action, though the specific details of the order, the authority that passed it, the tax period, and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner approached the High Court directly via a writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the existence of an alternate efficacious remedy? The petitioner contended that the present petition should be entertained, relying on the Apex Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 1155/2021 (M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others). The Revenue (State) argued that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy and has approached this Court to avoid depositing the amount, thus not availing the alternate remedy. The Revenue also contended that the cited Apex Court decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.