24.09.2026 Ct. No.446 Sl. No.10 akd W. P. A. 25863 of 2026 [Mahuya Roy -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy … … for the petitioner Mr. Tanmay Nath Mr. Priyabrota Das Mr. Satyam Pandey … … for respondent no. 2 [Bank of Baroda] Mr. Dinesh Chandra Singh … … for the State 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today is taken on record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: “A Writ or Writs in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 3 to withdraw, rescind, recall and/or quash the order dated 20.08.2026 passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect to secured assets of the Petitioner as stated in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as marked as Annexure P-1.” 3. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the present petitioner had obtained a home loan of Rs. 23,17,706/- from respondent no. 2/Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) for purchasing a two- room flat situated at Swarnabhoomi Apartment, near Balak Sangha Auto Shop, P.S. Santragachi, Howrah. However, the petitioner defaulted in making payment of the said loan. Consequently, the concerned Bank initiated proceedings under 2 the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, “the SARFAESI Act”) and a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner submitted representation under Section 13(3A) of the Act. Referring to the provisions of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, he further submits that, as per the legislative mandate embodied in Section 13(3A), the secured creditor was required to pass a reasoned order for non-acceptance of the representation of the borrower presented before it under the provisions of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. Drawing my attention to a communication of the Chief Manager, who is the authorised officer of the Bank, dated 19th June, 2026, addressed to the petitioner, he also submits that the said communication would indicate that no reasoned order was passed assigning reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s representation. According to him, such inaction in assigning reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s representation is arbitrary and constitutes a clear instance of violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, interference with the impugned order is warranted. 4. Mr. Nath, learned Advocate representing respondent no. 2/Bank of Baroda, submits that, despite having sufficient opportunities to approach the learned Tribunal, the petitioner did not avail herself of the remedy available to her under Section 17 of the Act and has directly approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. According to him, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and raise all these issues before the learned Tribunal. 3 5. Mr. Singh, learned Advocate appears for the State/respondents. 6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 7. Undisputedly, the present petitioner has called in question the legality of the order dated 20th August, 2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The record reveals that the secured creditor has taken recourse to the provisions of sub- section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the petitioner’s remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short, “DRT”). 8. In a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated the practice of entertaining a writ petition so as to stall the recovery proceedings initiated by the secured creditor. A useful reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110. 9. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. However, since, in the given case, a plea of non-disclosure of the reasons justifying the rejection of the petitioner’s representation has been raised, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is inclined to grant leave to the petitioner to file an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Tribunal within two weeks from date. If such application is filed within the time stipulated above, the same shall be decided on merits without raising any issue as to its belated presentation. 4 11. It is clarified that this order is passed in the facts and circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent in future. 12. With these observations and directions, WPA 25863 of 2026 is dismissed. 13. Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)