28.09.2026 Sl. No. 4 Ct No. 446 SG WPA 27169 of 2026 M/s. Maa Nandakeshwari Hardware & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Anirband Banerjee, Mrs. Shreshtha Gupta, Mr. Sayantan Banerjee. …for the petitioners Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Ms. Srijani Ghosh …for respondent no. 7 Mr. Dinesh Chandra Singh, Mr. Aniruddha Singh. …for the State 1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the legality and tenability of the order dated 26th May, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Birbhum under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (for short, “the Act”). 2. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the order of the District Magistrate was totally perverse and was passed without following the legislative mandate embodied in Section 14 of the Act. He submits that the order of the District Magistrate was challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by preferring an application under Section 17 of the Act; however, the said application has been decided against the petitioners. He further submits that, with the passage of time, the order of the District Magistrate has lost its force. However, the Block Development Officer, in connivance with the officials of the Bank, is trying to take possession of the secured asset forcibly, citing the order of the District Magistrate dated 26th May, 2025. He submits that, if the concerned Bank takes possession of the property in question 2 and the petitioners are dispossessed therefrom, the petitioners will suffer irreversible injury. For this reason, the immediate intervention of this Court is warranted and an interim order needs to be passed to ensure that the petitioners are not dispossessed from the property in question. 3. Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no. 7, disputes and denies the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act; however, without exhausting such statutory alternative remedy, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. In view thereof, such writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. Record reveals that the petitioners availed of a credit facility of Rs. 70 lakhs by creating an equitable mortgage over the property, particulars of which are detailed in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. However, the borrower defaulted in repayment of the loan and, accordingly, the secured creditor initiated action under the Act. A notice under Section 13(2) and, subsequently, under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued. The record further reveals that, in pursuance of Section 14 of the Act, the secured creditor submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Birbhum, and the District Magistrate, by passing an order dated 26th May, 2025, deputed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Siuri, SDM, Siuri, SDL&LRO and the Block Development Officer concerned to take possession of the secured asset within the time specified therein. The petitioners challenged the said order passed by the District Magistrate by preferring an 3 application under Section 17 of the Act. As noticed previously, such application has been decided against the petitioners, as would be evident from the order dated 12th August, 2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, their remedy lies under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, for redressal of their grievance, they are at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 5. In a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petitions primarily filed to stall recovery proceedings, particularly where such petitions are preferred without exhausting the statutory alternative remedy. A useful reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported at (2024) 6 SCC 579, (PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank & Ors). 6. Thus, for having efficacious alternative remedy, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present writ petition is, thus, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. This order shall not preclude the petitioners from approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. 8. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)