1 / 3 2025:CGHC:38286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4114 of 2025 Amit Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Prem Kant Mishra Aged About 38 Years R/o EWS 1660 & 1661 Ward No. 16, Industrial Estate Housing Board, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Authum Investment And Infrastructure Limited Through Authorized Officer, Branch Office, C-246/8, Second Floor, Near Sant Gyanshwari School, Vallabh Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- 1] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to the respondent authority to unlock the house of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2] That the Hon’ble Court may kindly please to issue a ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.06 10:43:06 +0530 2 / 3 writ/order/direction to the Respondent authority to restructure the loan facility of the petitioner allowing the petitioner to pay the due amount of Rs.2,78,000/- 3] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had availed a Home Loan Facility under the Reliance Home Finance for an amount of Rs.16,30,000/- for 269 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.17,169/- and the Respondent Bank classified the petitioner’s loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) in the year 2023 and on 25/07/2025 the respondent authority has ousted the family of the petitioner and has locked the house of the petitioner and have taken physical possession of the house. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prior notice as required under Section 13 (2) should have been given to the petitioner before taking possession of the secured assets, whereas in the instant case no such notice or intimation was served to the petitioner, therefore, the instant petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to unlock the house of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents. 5. Perusal of the documents shows that it is a matter relating to the Non Performing Assets, therefore, an alternative remedy is available to 3 / 3 the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu