Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010025902025 2025:GAU-AS:1476 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/741/2025 M/S CHANDYPORE TEA ESTATE REPRESENTED BY ROHIT KUMAL SL MAHESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O- LATE SLAL TOSHNIWAL MAHESWARI R/O- CHANDYPORE TEA ESTATE, P.O.- CHANDIPUR, P.S.- ALGAPUR, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, 788150. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, 110001. 2:RECOVERY OFFICER DEBTH RECOVERY TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI SUWARNA BHAWAN HOUSE NO. 12 NEW TOWN PATH G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 781007. 3:PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ERSTWHILE UNITED BANK OF INDIA Page No.# 2/4 REPRESENTED BY ZONAL MANAGER (GENERAL MANAGER) GUWAHATI ZONAL OFFICE UBI BUILDING 2ND FLOOR H.B. ROAD PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781001. 4:THE CHIEF MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK PNB CIRCLE OFFICE SILCHAR CENTRAL ROAD SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM 788001. 5:RAHUL TUSNIAL SON OF LATE SREE LAL TUSNIAL RESIDENT OF FLAT-3A 3B INDRAPASTHA APARTMENT 15-A INDRA ROY ROAD NEAR PURANA CINEMA HALL OPPOSITE JULIAN DAY SCHOOL KOLKATA- 700025. 6:ANUPAMA DASGUPTA WIFE OF PARTHAJIT DASGUPTA RESIDENT OF FE 438 SALT LAKE CITY KOLKATA- 64 WEST BENGAL Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, M ALI,MR N Z CHOUDHURY,MR N A MAZARBHUIYA Page No.# 3/4 Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, PNB BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 12.02.2025 Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Parvez, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has inter-alia questioned a Judgment & Order dated 05.11.2018 passed in an original application, O.A. no. 50 of 2018 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati; and a Recovery Certificate issued by the Presiding Officer, DRT on 12.11.2018 under sub-section [7] and [22] of Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [presently, the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993]. The original application was preferred by the United Bank of India as the applicant. The petitioner has also assailed an Order of attachment of immovable property dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Guwahati and an Order dated 28.11.2024 whereby a receiver has been appointed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,15,53,876.98/- along with pendent lite and further interest, subsequent to failure on the part of the certificate- debtors to pay the certificate amount. 3. The Judgment & Order dated 05.11.2018 as well as the actions taken by the subsequent orders can be assailed under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It is settled by in a long line of decisions that High Court shall not entertain any writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ignoring the availability of statutory remedies under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act [‘the DRT Act’, for short], as well as under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [‘the SARFAECI Act’, for short]. It has been observed in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, [2010] 8 SCC 110, that any exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would bring serious adverse impact on the right of the bank and other financial institutions in recovery of their Page No.# 4/4 dues. In PHR Invest Educational Society vs. UCO Bank, reported in [2024] 6 SCC 579, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court should not entertain a writ 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 grievance. 4. Having gone through the pleadings of the writ petition, this court does not find that the petitioner has made out an exceptional case for exercise of the discretionary and extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Evidently, in the case in hand, an effective and alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 in respect of the actions assailing which the present writ petition has been preferred. Therefore, the present writ petition is not to be entertained. It is accordingly observed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant