1 CGHC010272132026 2026:CGHC:31844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3711 of 2026 1 - Bank Of India Branch A R B, Naya Raipur Through Its Authorised Officer, Shri Suraj Kumar, S/o Shri Kamlesh Prasad, Aged About 41 Years, Office A R B Branch, Bank Of India, Naya Raipur Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tehsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - M/s. Mahamaya Vaccine Through Proprietor Phanindra Mishra, S/o Late Mool Chand Mishra, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Vidya Upnagar, Diprapara, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Jyoti Mishra W/o Phanindra Mishra Aged About 47 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Vidya Upnagar, Diprapara, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 8 - Shyama Devi Mishra W/o Late Mool Chand Mishra Aged About 85 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Vidya Upnagar, Diprapara, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner:- Mr. Puranjay Bhatt, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Bank has prayed for issuance of the following reliefs: “10.1 Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents No. 2 to 5 to forthwith provide necessary police assistance (with adequate force) for restoration of physical possession of the secured assets to the Authorised Officer of the Petitioner Bank, in compliance with orders dated 24.09.2025 (WPC 5041/2025) and 27.02.2026 (WPC 904/2026); 3 10.2 Direct Respondent No. 4 to take appropriate criminal action against Respondents No. 6 to 8 for trespass and mischief; 10.3 Grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.” 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner Bank is that it had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act against the defaulting borrowers. Pursuant to the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and in compliance with the earlier directions issued by this Court in WPC No. 5041 of 2025 decided on 24.09.2025 and WPC No. 904 of 2026 decided on 27.02.2026, physical possession of the secured assets was allegedly taken over by the petitioner Bank on 09.04.2026 after sealing the premises. It is alleged that within three days, i.e., on 12.04.2026, the private respondents unlawfully broke open the official seals and forcibly re-entered the secured assets. It is further pleaded that although an FIR has been registered with regard to the said incident, no effective action has been taken by the respondent authorities either for restoration of possession or for preventing the illegal occupation of the secured assets. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner Bank has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite lawful possession having been taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the private respondents have illegally re-entered 4 and occupied the secured assets by breaking the official seals. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to discharge their statutory obligation by not restoring possession to the petitioner Bank despite registration of the FIR. It is further submitted that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities has resulted in continuous financial loss to the petitioner Bank. Therefore, appropriate directions deserve to be issued to the police authorities for restoration of possession and for taking criminal action against the private respondents. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the dispute pertains to proceedings arising out of the SARFAESI Act and the matter is already pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. It is submitted that the petitioner has an effective and efficacious statutory remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and is also at liberty to seek appropriate relief before the competent authority in accordance with law. It is further submitted that once the matter is seized by the competent Tribunal under the special statute, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to entertain the present petition seeking the very reliefs which can be granted by the authorities or the Tribunal under the statutory framework. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 6. From the pleadings, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner essentially arises out of the implementation of measures taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the alleged subsequent dispossession by the private respondents. It is not in dispute that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. 7. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself providing an effective mechanism for redressal of grievances arising out of measures taken under the Act. The petitioner is also at liberty to approach the competent authority for seeking implementation of the order passed under Section 14 of the Act and for any ancillary relief, including restoration of possession, in accordance with law. 8. In view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy and considering that the dispute is already pending before the competent forum under the special enactment, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner Bank to approach the competent authority/forum, including the Debts Recovery Tribunal or any other authority competent under law, for redressal of its grievances in accordance with law. 6 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all questions are left open to be considered by the competent authority/forum in accordance with law. 11. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha