28.08.2026 Item No. 11 (DL) Court No.07 (Samar) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 15323 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 M/S TESCON & Anr. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Shobhantanu Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sagarmay Ghosh, …for the petitioners. Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, Ms. Payel Ghosh, …for the respondent Bank. In Re : CAN 1 of 2025 1. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for restoration of WPA 15323 of 2025 that stood dismissed for default on October 24, 2025. 2. In view of the good grounds shown in the application for restoration justifying the non representation of the petitioner on October 24, 2025, the order dated October 24, 2025 dismissing the writ petition for default is recalled. WPA 15323 of 2025 is restored to its original file and number. 3. CAN 1 of 2025 stands allowed. Re: W.P.A. 15323 of 2025 4. Upon the writ petition being restored, the writ petition is taken for immediate hearing by consent of the parties. 2 5. This writ petition assails the action taken by the Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 6. The petition in particular seeks to interdict enforcement of an order dated November 27, 2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Bankura on the Bank’s application under Section 14 of the 2002 Act. 7. The petitioner contentds that several proceedings are pending before the several fora and as such, the order dated November 27, 2024 cannot be implemented by the Bank. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the Bank submits that the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal no. II, Kolkata by filing an application being SA 40 of 2025 under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. 9. It is well settled that an order passed under Section 14 of the 2002 Act is a step after Section 13(4) of the said Act. All actions taken by the Bank under and after Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act are amenable to the jurisdiction of the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 thereof. Since the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery 3 Tribunal by filing SA 40 of 2025, the petitioner’s remedy clearly lies before the said Debts Recovery Tribunal. 10. Although, existence of alternative remedy is not a bar to exercise writ jurisdiction by this Court, yet, since the present petition does not involve any public law element and does not fall within any of the well settled exceptions justifying interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (i.e. violation of principle of natural justice or violation of fundamental rights or, challenge to the vires of any Act or an act wholly without jurisdiction) therefore this writ petition cannot be entertained. 11. Accordingly, WPA 15323 of 2025 stands dismissed. 12. This order shall not, however, preclude the petitioner from urging all points before the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal in the pending SARFAESI application in accordance with law. No Costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)