IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11028 of 2010 M/S KAVERI LIQUORS(P)LTD., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Ist Floor, Maha Laxmi Complex, Rajendra Path, Patna through its Director, Shri Anup Kumar aged about 37 years, son of Shri Lal Babu Prasad, resident of Ist Floor, Mahalaxmi Complex, Rajendra Path, Patna-01. Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. 2. The Industrial Development Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Maurya Centre-1, Frazer Road, Patna-1 3. Jupiter Electricals & Lamps (India) Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 279, Patliputra Colony, Patna-13 through Shri Nisheeth Jaiswal, Director son of late D.D. Jaiswal, resident of Plot No.1/108, New Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna 13. 4. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, Ist Floor, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-1 through its Managing Director…. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate For respondent No.3: Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha,Advocate For BIADA:- Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate. Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate For respondent No.2: Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. -- 2. 21.7.2010 Heard learned counsels for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the judgment dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in Appeal No.11 of 2009, by which the appeal preferred by respondent No.3 against the rejection of objection has been allowed and the order dated 2.7.2009 passed by the Recovery Officer has been quashed; the proclamation of sale has also been quashed and the confirmation of sale and certificate of sale have been cancelled, and - 2 - further Respondent No.3 (appellant) was directed to pay Rs. 1,28,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% and penalty at the rate of 3% simple on the auctioned amount and legal charges of Rs.20,000/- within three months from the date of receipt of the order. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the writ petition ought not to be entertained as there is provision for appeal against the impugned order dated 31.5.2010 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal which statutory remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that there are several errors in the judgment of the court below, including the observations made regarding the valuation of the property, etc. However, he is unable to point out any jurisdictional error in the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The mere fact that an order passed by the Tribunal may be erroneous is not a ground for entertaining a writ petition against the same, if an adequate alternative statutory remedy is available in the matter. In my view, the petitioner’s remedy before - 3 - the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is adequate and expeditious. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is also a remedy of review available under Rule 5 A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that since statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, the writ petition should not be entertained. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal is not on the merit of the case and it would be open to the petitioner to pursue his alternative statutory remedy before the appropriate forum. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )