23.07.2026 Court No.25 S/L No.1 S. Gayen In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 18020 of 2026 Vivek Mahansaria Versus Punjab National Bank & Ors. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashwat Nayak Mr. Debjit Mukherjee …for the Petitioner Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury Ms. Trisha Chanda …for the Bank 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Recovery Officer dated May 21, 2026 in RP/29/2020 OA/150/10 wherein the receiver is directed to take actual physical possession of the properties described in Schedules A, B and C of the petition within 30 days from the date of this order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not aware of the proceeding in which the Recovery Officer has passed the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner is only a tenant and he has no knowledge with regard to the proceeding pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against the owner of the property. He further submits that only on July 20, 2026 a notice was pasted on the door of the premises of the petitioner and from the said notice the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Recovery Officer and for taking 2 possession of the premises by the receiver on July 23, 2026. Accordingly, the petitioner has made an application before the DRT being IA No. 152 of 2026 and the matter was listed on July 21, 2026 but due to resolution of the Bar, the matter could not be taken up for hearing, accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ application for interim relief as today is the date of taking possession of the premises. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for bank submits that the notice was issued on July 15, 2026. The petitioner has not taken any steps and subsequently, the petitioner has filed an application before the DRT and was fixed on July 21, 2026 but instead of moving the application before the DRT has filed the present writ application. She further submits that the date was fixed by the receiver on July 23, 2026, i.e., today and accordingly, the receiver has taken possession of the premises in question. She has also handed over some photographs showing that some police personnel along with some other persons are in front of the premises and the premises showing that the shutter of the workshop is closed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner denied the submission made by the learned counsel for the bank with regard to taking possession by the receiver. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. This Court finds that the Recovery Officer has passed the order on May 21, 2026. The receiver has issued 3 the notice for taking possession on July 15, 2026 and pasted the same at the premises on July 20, 2026. When the petitioner came to know about taking possession of the premises in terms of the order passed by the Recovery Officer, the petitioner has already approached the DRT by filing appropriate application and the matter was fixed on July 21, 2026 but the matter could not be taken up for hearing. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ application for interim relief by restraining the receiver for taking possession. 7. The contention of the respondents that the possession has already been taken but the petitioner is denying with regard to taking possession by the receiver. The disputed question cannot be decided by this Court at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by requesting the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Kolkata to take up the application filed by the petitioner as early as possible, preferably by July 30, 2026. 9. The Recovery Officer shall decide with regard to the possession of the tenant in question at the time of hearing of the application filed by the petitioner. 10. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)