IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAK AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 794 OF 2025 Between: Punjab National Bank, Rep. by is Authorized Officer B Anil Kumar S/o Mohan aged about 41 years serving as Chief Manager, Circle SASTRA Center, 9-35, 1st Floor, Kavuri Towers Kamaiahthopu, Kanuru, Vijayawada.520007 , ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Represented by its Registrar O/o Narayana Bhavanam, Sai Baba Street, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam 2. Smt. Patapanjula Giri Manogna, W/o. Aged about Years R/o. 6th ward, Tanguturi 17th Block, TS No.674, D No.58-1-2, Chellamma veedi Village, Prakasham District. 3. Sri Nene Subba Reddy, S/o. Lakshman Reddy, R/o. D No.37-1-404(12), Bhagyanagar, 2nd Line, Trunk Road, Ongole town, Prakasam District AP-523001. 4. Sri Cherukuru Srinivasulu, S/o. Obaiah, R/o. Flat No. Gl, Sri Shiridi Sai Towers, Bhagyanagar, 2nd Line, Ongole Town, Prakasham District AP- 520001. 5. Sri Pentela Subba Rao, S/o. Ramulu, R/o. D No. 6-46, Sri Nagaf Colony, 1st Line, Ongole Town Prakasham District, AP-523001. 6. Nune Sirisha, D/o. Rosi Reddi, R/o. D No.1-1/26P, Krishna Sai Enclave, Miyapur, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS /•s' ^Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order or Direction more particularly one in the Nature of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, calling for the records pertaining to S.A. No.210 of 2024 dated 07.12.2024 and quash the as arbitrary, illegal. Violative of Principles of Natural Justice and against the Object of the Provisions laid down under SARFAESI Act and Consequently Set aside the Orders Passed by the Learned Respondent No.1 in SA No.210 of 2024 dated 07.12.2024. same ^ lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Orders Passed by the Learned Respondent No.1 in SA No.210 of 2024 dated 07.12.2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI Counsel for the Respondents: -— The Court made the following: ORDER ‘ - APHC010010152025 Bench Sr.No:-7 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 794 of 2025 Punjab National Bank ...Petitioner Vs. The Debt Recovery Tribunal and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for petitioner Advocate for respondents Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri None CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 20th January 2025 PC : The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in S.A.No.210 of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam dated 07.12.2024. 2. We are of the opinion that there is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 3. Considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P./ whereby the Apex Court had reiterated the principle that when an alternate remedy was available to a person, the resort to extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not permitted unless (2021) 6 see 771 sVf 2 <S5> the Court was satisfied that the case of the petitioner fell within any of the exceptions which had been crystallized by the Apex Court as under:- “27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural Justice; (c) the order proceedings are wholly without Jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.” or Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon^ wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise Jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 4. 5. In view of the fact that an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner and the petitioner has been unable to bring the present case within the exceptions carved out in Radha Krishan Industries’s case, we deem it appropriate that the petitioner resorts to avail the alternate remedy and we do not find any reason to interfere at this stage by invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. No order as to costs. ^ [{2010)8 see 110 2010 INSe 428] 3 n r Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-B.CHITT1 JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (A^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, O/o Narayana Bhavanam Sai Baba Street, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam 2. One CC to Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.794 of 2025 I 0 5 FEB 2025 „ ^ , Current Section m { disposing of the W.P., WITHOUT COSTS