Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010162752025 2025:GAU- AS:12348-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4225/2025 ABDUL MUTALIB S/O HUSSAIN ALI, R/O BARPAKA, TARABARI, RUPAHI, PIN-782125, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, BANKING AND INSURANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-11001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GHY-781006 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND C.E.O. ICICI BANK HEAD OFFICE ITS REGISTERED OFFICE- ICICI BANK TOWE NEAR CHAKLI CIRCLE OLD PADRE ROAD VADODARA-390007 INDIA 4:THE ZONAL HEAD OFFICER OF ASSAM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PARNIL PALACE COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR ZOO ROAD TINIALI Page No.# 2/6 RGB ROAD GUWAHATI-781024 ASSAM 5:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ICICI BANK LIMITED LANDMARK BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR 228A AJC BOSE ROAD KOLKATA-700020 WEST BENGAL INDIA 6:THE PRODUCT HEAD THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ICICI BANK LIMITED MUMBAI-400051 7:BRANCH MANAGER HAVING ITS BRANCH A.T. ROAD HAIBAR GAON NAGAON-782002 ASSAM 8:ICICI BANK LIMITED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH SHANTI COMPLEX G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS. S YASMIN (R-3 TO 8),MR. M SHARMA (R-3 TO 8),SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 10/09/2025 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) Page No.# 3/6 1. Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 to 8 and Ms. P. R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. The petitioner, who is a loanee, seeks upgradation of his Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) against the home loan account nos. LBGUW00005754160 and LBGUW000058848788 (mortgage insurance loan) to Standard Assets, on the promise of making payment of all the outstanding arrear amount with interest as on date against the aforesaid loan account. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the prayer of the petitioner for upgradation of his NPS to Standard Assets is permissible in terms of clause 4.2.5 of the Revised Master Circular, which is as follows:- “4.2.5 Upgradation of loan accounts classified as NPAS The loan accounts classified as NPAs may be upgraded as 'standard" asset only if entire arrears of interest and principal are paid by the borrower) In case of borrowers having more than one credit facility from a bank, loan accounts shall be upgraded from NPA to standard asset category only upon repayment of entire arrears of interest and principal pertaining to all the credit facilities. With regard to upgradation of accounts classified as NPA due to restructuring, non-achievement of date of commencement of commercial operations (DCCO), etc., the Instructions as specified for such cases shall continue to be applicable.” 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the above prayer had been made by the Page No.# 4/6 petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati. However, the same was not considered or decided by the DRT, Guwahati. The further case of the petitioner is that though there is default on payment of 13 EMIs by the petitioner, the petitioner is presently paying the current EMIs regularly. She submits that the petitioner has some arrear EMIs as on date. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner had already approached the DRT under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, on account of the notification under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act made by the respondent bank. The same being rejected, the petitioner would have to file an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. As can be seen from the stand taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the petitioner wants upgradation of his NPAs to Standard Assets in terms of clause 4.2.5 of the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). However, the declaration of the petitioner’s loan as NPAs had been made by the bank under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in view of the petitioner having continued to default in his repayment of the loans, despite his loan amount being declared NPAs. The respondent bank had thereafter issued notification under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession over the assets of the petitioner. Section 13(4) notification issued by the respondent bank was thereafter put to challenge by the Page No.# 5/6 petitioner before the learned DRT. However, the same was dismissed. 8. As can be seen from the above facts, the declaration of the petitioner’s loans as NPAs, has been made under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the consequential section 13(4) notification has been upheld by the DRT. 9. Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the DRT under section 17, may prefer an appeal before the appellate Tribunal within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the order of the DRT. 10. The above section 18 clearly shows that the statutory remedy available to the petitioner, to make a challenge to the rejection of his application under section 17 is available to the petitioner. 11. In the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. Uco Bank and others [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 528], the Supreme Court held that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken, itself contains a mechanism for Redressal of the grievance. In the present case, the petitioner’s section 17 application, which was a challenge to the section 13(4) notification, also takes within its fold the declaration of the petitioner’s loans as NPAs in terms of section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, when the challenge under section 17 of the Act is rejected, the petitioner would have to avail the statutory remedy of appeal provided under section 18 of the Act. Page No.# 6/6 12. In view of there being a statutory remedy available and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, as indicated above, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 13. The above being said, the petitioner is always at liberty to bring to the notice of the appellate authority, the issues that have been raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant