-1- 2025:CGHC:29932 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3382 of 2021 Somesh Shukla S/o Bodhram, Aged About 41 Years R/o Old Chandaniyapara, Ward No. 17, Ahead of Balaji Provision, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tehsildar, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4- HDFC Bank Limited, Through Its Authorized officer, Department of Special Operation, Peninsula Business Park, Wing-B, 4th Floor, Dawn Mills Compound, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Pared, Mumbai (West) 400013, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra. 5 - M/s Laxmi Enterprises, Proprietor, Manoj Kumar Pandey, Dhimarapur Chowk, Jspl Road, Tehsil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - Manoj Kumar Pandey, R/o House No. 16/29/01, Kharsiya, Sindhi Colony Road, Behind Ganj, Sardar Patel Marg-3, Village Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 7 - Kanhaiya Lal Pandey, R/o Khasra No. 3960/6 (Old) And 3960/17 (New), Area 0.05 Decimal, Pc No. 47, IIC, Janjgir, Chandaniyapara, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 8 - Surendra Kumar Shukla, R/o Khasra No. 3960/6 (Old) And 3960/17 (New), Area 0.05 Decimal, Pc No. 47, IIC, Janjgir, Chandaniyapara, Tehsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.07.2025 1) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner even in second round. 2) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, SARFAESI Act). 3) It is well settled that against an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the aggrieved person has an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the said Act. 4) In view of the availability of such alternative statutory remedy, the present petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim