# Prahlad Kumar v. The District Magistrate, Allahabad and others - **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 605 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-04-22 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23423 of 2011 - **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra, S.C. Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prahlad-kumar-v-the-district-magistrate-allahabad-and-others-41935 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India Art-226-Recovery Proceeding-House loan default in Payment of installment-questioned before Writ Court-in view of law developed by Apex Court on alternative remedy under Securitisation Act Writ Court generally not entertain PetitionConsidering undisputed amount,willingness to pay entire amount with consent of partiesPetition disposed of with certain observation protecting the interest of bank of the petitioner. Held: Para 6 The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents-Bank has no objection to the above prayer made on behalf of the petitioner provided the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.75,000/- by 17.5.2011 and further deposits the balance amount in three equal quarterly instalments. Case law discussed: 2010 (8) SCC 110. 606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 ## Text 2 All] Prahlad Kumar V. The District Magistrate, Allahabad and others 605 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the election of respondent no.8, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that when the challenge in the petition is essentially the challenge to the election of an elected candidate for which remedy is to file an election petition, this court normally does not entertain a writ of quo-warranto. In the present case, the petitioner herself has filed Election Petition No. 2 of 2010 challenging the election of respondent no. 6 which is pending consideration. After filing the election petition, the petitioner has come up by praying for a writ of quowarranto. The issue which has been raised in the writ petition that respondent no. 6 was not eligible to contest the election is the issue in the election petition which can very well be gone into in the election petition and decided. In the facts of the present case and in view of the Division Bench judgement in the case of Khem Singh Pachhara (supra), we are of the view that the present writ petition for a writ of quo-warranto need not be entertained. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition praying for a writ of quo-warranto cannot be entertained and is dismissed accordingly. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J. THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23423 of 2011 Prahlad Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The District Magistrate, Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Satyaveer Singh Counsel for the Respondent: Smt. Archana Singh C.S.C. Constitution of India Art-226-Recovery Proceeding-House loan default in Payment of installment-questioned before Writ Court-in view of law developed by Apex Court on alternative remedy under Securitisation Act Writ Court generally not entertain PetitionConsidering undisputed amount,willingness to pay entire amount with consent of partiesPetition disposed of with certain observation protecting the interest of bank of the petitioner. Held: Para 6 The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents-Bank has no objection to the above prayer made on behalf of the petitioner provided the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.75,000/- by 17.5.2011 and further deposits the balance amount in three equal quarterly instalments. Case law discussed: 2010 (8) SCC 110. 606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 (Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J) 1. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner took housing loan for construction of house from the respondent no.3-State Bank of India in the year 2002. 2. The petitioner committed default in respect of the said loan. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Securitisation Act") have been initiated against the petitioner. 3. We have heard Shri Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, and have perused the averments made in the Writ Petition. 4. In United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitisation Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said Act. 5. Shri Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, states that the petitioner does not want to question the merits of the proceedings being taken under the Securitisation Act and wants to pay the entire outstanding dues with interest and expenses on pro-rata basis in case reasonable time is given to him for making the deposit in instalments. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents-Bank has no objection to the above prayer made on behalf of the petitioner provided the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.75,000/- by 17.5.2011 and further deposits the balance amount in three equal quarterly instalments. 7. In view of the above, we dispose of the Writ Petition with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the Writ Petition, by giving the following directions: 1. The petitioner will clear off the entire outstanding dues along-with interest, penal interest and expenses on pro-rata basis. 2. The entire outstanding dues shall be paid in four instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 75,000/- shall be paid by 17.5.2011, and thereafter, the remaining amount will be paid in three equal quarterly instalments. 3. Initially the recovery proceedings are stayed till 17.5.2011. On depositing the first instalment, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed up to the date of next instalment and the process shall continue until the last instalment has been paid. 4. If the petitioner deposits the entire amount as undertaken by the petitioner in the manner indicated above, the proceedings shall stand withdrawn. 2 All] Kshetrapal V. Central Recruitment & Promotion Department, S.B.I. and another 607 5. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of any one instalment within the stipulated period, the Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 6. The cost and recovery charges, if any, shall be paid along-with the last instalment. 8. It is made clear that this order has been passed on the statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Bank, and we have not adjudicated the claim on merits. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24240 of 2011 Kshetrapal ...Petitioner Versus Central Recruitment & Promotion Department, State Bank of India and another ... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sujeet Kumar Sri Chhaya Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226-Service law-Petitioner appeared in clerical examination-written test obtained much more marks than the lowest selected candidate-but got only 10 marks in interview-as qualifying marks is only 12 marks-petitioner challenging in mode of examination-held-once participated in selection can not be allowed to Question the mode of selection. Held: Para 10 Petitioner after having taken a chance of appearing in the selection proceedings, it is not open to him to challenge the selection proceedings or to challenge the rule or advertisement under which he has appeared. It is well settled that once a candidate has taken a chance of appearing in the proceedings for selection then it is not open for him to challenge the same or to challenge the rule or advertisement under which he appeared, as such, candidate has no locus standi. Case law discussed: (1995) 3 SCC 486; (1998) 3 SCC 694 (Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the recruitment on the post in the clerical cadre in different divisions of State Bank of India conducted by respondent no. 1, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs. "1. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to rearrange the interview of petitioner and decide his selection on the basis of fresh interview. 2. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to select the petitioner for the post of clerical cadre on the basis of marks secured by him.