19 30.03.2026 Ct. No.07 J.Das IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 20277 of 2025 Sudhin Paul and Anr. Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. Mr. Ankita Dey …For the petitioner Mr. Debabrata Das Mr. A. Sarkar Mr. Pratik Acharjee …For the Reserve Bank of India Mr. Dipanjan Datta Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury Ms. Esha Basak …For the Union Bank of India Mr. Lal Mohan Hajra Mr. Anirudha Chatterjee Mr. Somesh Panja Mrs. Anuradha Hajra Mrs. Moutusi Hazra …For the respondent nos.7 & 8 1. The writ petitioner is directed against alleged excess funds on account of sale proceeds lying with the respondent bank and for consequential directions. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that despite having filed a representation dated 7 July 2025 for release of such excess amount, the respondent bank has taken no steps whatsoever. On behalf of the private respondent bank nos. 7 and 8, it is submitted that the entire debt has been paid by the respondent no.7 and notwithstanding this fact the bank has proceeded to sell the secured assets. 2 3. The above facts are disputed by the respondent bank. On behalf of the bank. It is submitted that any sale of the secured assets has been in terms of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Writ Court ought not to go into such questions. 4. In view of the statute alternative remedy available to the petitioner under section 17 of the SARFESI Act, the instant writ petition is not liable to be entertained. All the questions sought to be raised by the petitioner would be more effectively adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. This is the clear statutory mandate. 5. It is made clear that there has been no adjudication on the merits of this case and all questions are left open for the Appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal to adjudicate in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, WPA 20277 of 2025 stands dismissed. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)