15/01 2026 AD-07/24 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 98 of 2026 TAPASH KUMAR DAS Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Mr. Subhash Chandra Sarkar, Advocate …...for the Petitioner Mr. Manabendranath Bandopadhyay, Advocate ……for the Union of India Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Advocate Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Ankita Jha, Advocate ……for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 1. Affidavit of service, as filed, be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that in spite of having made excess payment while liquidating the dues to the Bank, the Bank has taken possession by initiating the process under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, the said Act). 3. The petitioner has already challenged such process before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I (DRT), being SA 29 of 2026, which is pending adjudication. 4. I am informed that the matter has been fixed on 11.03.2026. 5. Since the petitioner is out of his residential property as well as his factory, which is the only source of income, the DRT-I, Kolkata, is directed to take up the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same by an early date, in the event, the petitioner files the requisite application before it seeking preponement of the matter. 6. With these directions, WPA 98 of 2026 is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) P a g e | 2