Aditya Kumar vs The Recovery Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal Patna

Date : 23-09-2026

This Writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

That this is an application for setting aside the order dated 9.5.2023 and Notice of warrant of attachment of Immovable property in R.Ρ No.-280/2016 description of which is enumerated in description of the property viz Certificate debtor No.-2 Meena Devi W/O Diwakar Kumar Karn, sale deed No. 1246 dt.-18.7.1979 Mauza Mahdhubani, Than K. Hat Co Purnea East Sub Registry office Purnea, Thana No. 123 Tauzi No.- 815, Ward No. 13(0) 10(New) Holding No.- 367 B Khata No. 868/663 Khesra No.- 1659(P), Area 8 Dece 4 kari.

Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned counsel for the respondent.

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, held as follows:

The High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. While dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

In case of Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-

This court has time and again, reminded the high courts that they should not entertain petition under article 226 of the constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI ACT.

In case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs UCO Bank & Ors reported in 2024 Insc 297, the same principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Therefore, this Court is of the considerable view that the Writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative and effective remedy is available to the petitioners. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for availing their remedy, and the concerned authority shall also consider the aspect of limitation.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petition stands disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

Aryan/-