p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 29463 of 2025 Tapaswini Panda ….. Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opp. Party(s) Mr. Tuna Sahu, Advocate along with Mr. G.K. Sundaraya, Advocate (for Bank) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 22.10.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Mr. Tuna Sahu, learned counsel files Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party-Indian Bank in Court today, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opp. party-Bank. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Tapaswini Panda challenging inter alia the sale notice dated 10.02.2025 under Annexure-4, with a further p. 2 prayer to release the capital investment subsidy under the Mukhyamantri Krushi Udyoga Yojana (MKUY) in favour of the petitioner and to direct the bank to regularize the loan account. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-Indian Bank submits that in terms of the SARFAESI Act proceeding, the e-auction sale notice was issued, which has been successful and sale certificate has already been issued in favour of one G.S. Dibyaprakash Puhan on 04.10.2025, copy of which is produced in Court and the same is taken on record. The said G.S. Dibyaprakash Puhan has not been arrayed as party in this writ petition. Mr. S. Sourav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issuance of sale certificate in favour of G.S. Dibyaprakash Puhan is not in consonance with the due process and culmination of non- application of the scheme namely Mukhyamantri Krushi Udyoga Yojana, 2024. The reliefs sought by the petitioner have been ignored while taking recourse to the SARFAESI Act proceeding. In the case of PHR Invent Educational Society - Vrs.-UCO Bank and others reported in (2024) 6 Supreme Court Cases 579 so also in the case of CELIR LLP -Vrs.- Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court p. 3 Cases 1, it has been held that the High Court should not entertain the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when alternative remedy is available under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In the case of Bafna Motors (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “110.3. In accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available till the sale or transfer of such secured asset. In other words, the borrower's right of redemption did not stand terminated on the date of the auction-sale of the secured asset itself and remained alive till the transfer was completed in favour of the auction-purchaser, by registration of the sale certificate and delivery of possession of the secured asset. However, the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules. In effect, the right of redemption available to the borrower under the present statutory regime is drastically curtailed and would be available only till the date of publication of the notice under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules and not till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of the auction-purchaser.” Be that as it may, since in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of p. 4 Bafna Motors (supra) and PHR Invent Educational Society (supra), the petitioner has got alternative remedy, we dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy available under the law, raising all the points which have been raised here, which is to be adjudicated in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok/Swarna Designation: Secretary