N.22Sl 151/CL 29.07.26 DL-13 Ct-07 (S.R.) WPA 18807 of 2026 M/s. Nest Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dhananjay Nayak Mr. Aiswaryya Mukherjee … for the Petitioner. Mr. Swastick Saha … for the State. Mr. Baidurya Ghosal Mr. Sourav Mukherjee Mr. Saikat Mukherjee … for the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. 1. This writ petition assails a step taken by the respondent bank to put the secured asset on sale under the relevant provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. The petitioner is a borrower of the respondent no.2 who has defaulted in repayment of the credit facilities availed of by it from the respondent Bank. The petitioner had mortgaged an immovable property with the Bank to secure the credit facility. The respondent Bank has initiated proceedings under the 2002 Act and has now put up the said secured asset for sale through auction. 3. The e-auction sale notice dated June 20, 2026 (Annexure P-6 to the writ petition), forms the immediate cause of the grievance of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner did not have any notice of the sale that is sought to be conducted by the respondent bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to pages 104 and 105 of the writ petition to demonstrate that the sale notice did not reach the petitioner and has returned to the bank undelivered with the endorsement “left”. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had written to the bank on July 24, 2026 asking for the loan documents and documents like 13(2) notice, 13(4) notice and SA, yet the bank did not provide the same to the petitioner, and that the bank handed up the letter (sale notice) dated June 20, 2026 to the petitioner only on July 27, 2026. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that the notices were duly published in two newspapers on June 20, 2026. 8. The learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that the petitioner has already instituted a SARFAESI application being SA 322 of 2020 before the relevant DRT challenging the Bank’s action under the 2002 Act. 9. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on 2 record. 10. It is petitioner’s own case that the petitioner had written to the bank on July 24, 2026 asking for the loan documents including notices “like 13(2), 13(4) and SA, if any file” (as would be evident from the letter dated July 24, 2026 which forms Annexure P-5 to the writ petition). 11. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was/is aware that the credit facilities availed of by the petitioner from the bank were/are in default and SARFAESI proceedings had been initiated. 12. It is the clear case of the deponent (of the affidavit in support of the writ petition) who is also one of the Directors of the petitioner that she was inducted in the Board of the petitioner company on January 8, 2026. However, she made a representation to the bank, for the first time only on July 24, 2026 i.e. just four days prior to date of the e-auction. The proximity of the date on which the petitioner made the said representation to the date of e-auction, casts sufficient doubts as regards the genuineness of the petitioner’s case of lack of knowledge of the SARFAESI proceedings. 13. Insofar as the petitioner’s submission that the petitioner did not receive the postal article containing the e-auction as the same notice was not delivered to the petitioner is concerned, such argument cannot be accepted inasmuch as firstly, 3 the notice is addressed not to the petitioner but one of its directors and there is nothing on record to show that either the other directors of the petitioner company were not served or the petitioner company itself was not served. 14. It also not the petitioner’s case that the letter carries a wrong address and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had informed the bank that her address has changed. 15. The petitioner ought to have put the bank on notice about the petitioner’s present address if she had left the earlier one. In such view of the matter, when the postal article has come back with the endorsement “left”, it should be deemed as good service. 16. On top of all, the petitioner has a statutory remedy before the relevant DRT under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. Although existence of alternative remedy is not a bar, yet, since neither any public law element is involved in the matter nor any extraordinary case has been made out, therefore this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interdict a sale scheduled to be held today. 17. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and all points are left open to be urged by the petitioner before 4 the relevant DRT. All observations that have been made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding as to whether this Court would exercise its highly prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not. 18. With the above observations WPA 18807 of 2026 is disposed of leaving the petitioner free to approach the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) 5