Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI WPA 21757 OF 2026 SUBHENDU SUR …PETITIONER -VERSUS- THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner : Mr.SaikatBasu, Adv. Mr. R. Singh, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Ms.DebjaniGhosh, Adv. Mr.Bhaskar Mukherjee, Adv. Mr.DebduttaDutta, Adv. Heard on : 31.08.2026 Pronounce on : 31.08.2026 OM NARAYAN RAI, J.:- 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. This writ petition assails the vires of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20021, alleging that in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court only dealt with the aspect of fraudulent sale of mortgaged property and not with the fraudulent classification of loan account as NPA. 1 Hereafter “the 2002 Act” 2 (2004) 4 SCC 311 3. Such an allegation is clearly unfounded. In the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “to a very limited extent jurisdiction of the Civil Court can also be invoked, where for example, the action of the secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent”. This observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly knocks out the petitioner’s assertion and the fine distinction sought to be made by the petitioner does not survive for a decision. 4. In any case, challenge to the constitutionality of the 2002 Act has already been dealt with and the validity of the said Act has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, excepting the provision under Section 17(2) thereof that provided for depositing 75% of the amount claimed before entertaining the challenge under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. The challenge to the constitutionality of the 2002 Act is, therefore, wholly baseless. 5. The petitioner has next challenged the actions taken by the Bank under the provisions of the 2002 Act. The 2002 Act provides sufficient machinery for redressal of grievance of any person due to any of the measures taken by the Bank under the relevant provisions of the said Act. The petitioner therefore has an effective alternative remedy before the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. This writ petition is therefore clearly not entertained. 6. Furthermore, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are all private entities, the lending Bank being a private Bank. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir3, this writ petition is even otherwise not maintainable. 7. WPA 21757 of 2026 stands dismissed. No Costs. 8. This order shall however, not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate form in accordance with law seeking redressal of his grievance 9. 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.) D/L Sl-12 Ct.-07 (Samar) 3 (2002) 5 SCC 345