Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010036912026 2026:GAU-AS:3287-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1146/2026 M/S GAYAN STEEL FABRICATION PROPRIETOR NITUL GAYAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE BANAMALI GAYAN, VILL .MURHANI, P.O. CHALCHALI, PURONIGUDAM, P.S. SAMAGURI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI.PIN - 781006 2:CANARA BANK SPECIALISED A.R.M. BRANCH 1ST FLOOR DEE DEE GRANDE PANJABARI ROAD SIXMILE GUWAHATI 781022 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:DIST. COMMISSIONER DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782002 4:RECOVERY OFFICER II DEBT. RECOVERY TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI PIN 781007 Page No.# 2/4 5:THE BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK NAGAON BRANCH SITUATED AT VIP ROAD NAGAON PIN 782001 6:THE REGIONAL OFFICE CANARA BANK 2ND FLOOR BLOCK A MAYFAIR BUILDING LOKHRA ROAD GUWAHATI PIN 781034 7:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NAGAON L.N.B ROAD NAGAON ASSAM PIN 78200 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, S CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 06-03-2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Parvej, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 7. 2. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been Page No.# 3/4 filed by the proprietor of M/s Gayan Steel Fabrication, a micro/small enterprise located in Murhani, Puranigudam, Nagaon District, Assam, established in 2012. The petitioner challenges actions by Canara Bank (respondent No.7, the lending institution) in recovering loans under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, and its Recovery Officer. The loans – a Cash Credit (OCC) of Rs.15 Lakhs (later enhanced to Rs. 30 Lakhs) and a Term Loan of Rs.28.50 Lakhs, totalling Rs.43.50 Lakhs were sanctioned on 09.08.2014 and covered under the Central Government Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises (CGTMSE) scheme, a collateral-free guarantee program for MSEs (with 80% coverage for North East Region units). The petitioner paid annual guarantee fees as per the scheme. 3. The petitioner seeks to set aside/modify the Recovery Officer’s order dated 30.01.2026. 4. Learned counsels for the parties submit that there is an alternative remedy available in terms of Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. 5. In the case of P.H.R. Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others (SLP(C) 8867/2022), the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act, as they are effective alternative remedies. 6. Accordingly, in view of there being an alternative statutory remedy available, the petitioner should approach the Appropriate Forum in terms of the Page No.# 4/4 statutory alternative remedy available, within a period of 10 days from today, for redressal of his grievances. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant