AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 06-08-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
This writ application has been filed for the following relief(s):-
“For issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in S.A. No. 142 of 2019 whereby the auction sale dated 16.09.2022 conducted by Punjab National Bank, Circle SASTRA Office at Circle Office, Muzaffarpur and also ordered for payment of compensation at the rate of Rupees 1000 per month and restoration of possession of the mortgaged property to the guarantor and the consequential sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioner have been set aside. And/or pass pass such other order/ (s), direction/(s) as this Court may deem fit and proper.”
At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna and there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the said order before the Appellate Authority i.e. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, but the petitioner without availing the said statutory remedy, has directly approached this Court. It is settled law that if statutory remedy is available then the party aggrieved with the order must approach the Appellate Authority first before approaching the Writ Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further draws the attention of this Court towards the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court reiterates the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, reported in (2010) 8 SCC, in which it is 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 are 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 the case of Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai)(P) Ltd., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court has 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 the case of PHR Invent Educational Society V. UCO Bank & Ors. reported in 2024 Insc 297, the same principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In view of the aforesaid facts and settled law on the issue, this Court is of the considerable view that this Writ Application is not maintainable when an alternative and effective remedy is available to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for availing his remedy, and the concerned authority shall also consider the aspect of limitation.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
All pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.