SIKANDER ALI AHMED v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
WP(C)/3085/2025 · 2025-06-05
Kalyan Rai Surana, Malasri Nandi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13673 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13673 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010120922025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3085/2025 SIKANDER ALI AHMED SON OF LATE ABDUL HAQUE R/O VILL KUMULLIPARA NEAR MAA PARAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA, PIN-781316, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, LAND AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA
P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA PIN- 781316 DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA PIN-781316 DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Page No.# 2/4 BARPETA P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781316
DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BARNAGAR REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O.AND P.S. BARPETA PIN-781316 DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 6:CANARA BANK BARPETA ROAD BRANCH
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA PIN-781315 DIST. BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR, MD IMRAN,A ISLAM,MR. S B BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE
Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 06.06.2025 (K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. S. B. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Land and Revenue Department for the respondent no.1 and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order No. BMJ-5/2004/705 issued on 18.03.2025, by the Additional District Magistrate, Barpeta initiating recovery under Revenue Recovery Act against defaulting Government Employee in the case of Maa Paran B.Ed. College against the petitioner who is the proprietor thereof. 3. As per the contents of the said notice, the recovery proceedings has been initiated on an application received from the authorized Tezpur Regional Officer Canara Bank, Barpeta Road Branch regarding the initiation of Recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are specialized Tribunals and Courts to enforce recovery of the bank dues and therefore, the mode in which the money sought to be recovered is not sustainable.
He has also submitted that although the petitioner has availed a loan from the Canara Bank and was a defaulter at one point of time, however, the petitioner has been repaying the loan and interest dutifully after the year 2024 and therefore, such
Page No.# 4/4 recovery could not have been initiated. 5. From the documents appended to the writ petition, it appears that the Canara Bank (respondent no.6) has issued notice dated 21.02.2023 and 22.07.2024 to (1) Maa Paran B.Ed. College (borrower), (2) Sikander Ali Ahmed (Proprietor) (title-holder), and (3) Nazrul Islam (guarantor) under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act for short). 6. Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the said Act provides for an alternative efficacious forum for the petitioner to agitate any point he desire to press against the recovery sought to be made by the Canara Bank. Even otherwise, if an action is initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, efficacious remedy is provided for under Section 4 of the said Act. 7. Under such circumstances, as alternative efficacious forum is provided to the petitioner to agitate his grievance where recovery notice has been issued under the SARFAESI Act and the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, the Court would not issue a writ. Accordingly, this writ petition is found without any merit as alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant