IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 508 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27504/2007 Dated 21/01/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. M/S. BEST FOOD CORPORATION, KARUVELIPADY, COHIN - 5, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR A. HABEEB, S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN, SUBAIDA MANZIL, KAROOR, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. RAZIA BEEVI, W/O. HABEEB, SUBAIDA MANZIL, KAROOR, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPPUZHA BRANCH, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER. 2. A.M. SURENDRAN, S/O. LATE A.A. MADHAVAN, ANDUIMALIL HOUSE, NEAR SATHOM CHURCH, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP), 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDINGS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 036. BY ADV. K. JAYAKUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.508 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, Questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.27504 of 2007 dated 21st January, 2008, petitioners in the writ petition are before us in this appeal. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer for realising the monies due to State Bank of India. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners' property has been auctioned in favour of the second respondent for a price of Rs.50,000/- in excess of the upset price. It is further stated that an application had been filed before the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale and that application is rejected by an order passed on 13.11.2007. It is further stated that the Recovery Officer has not confirmed the sale in view of the pendency of the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge, being of the opinion that the orders passed by the Recovery Officer can be subject matter of an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, has rejected the writ petition. 4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners are before us in this writ appeal. 5. Sri. B.Krishna Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as usual, has reiterated all the contentions that were raised in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. We are not impressed by any one of the arguments canvassed by him. We are of the opinion that since the petitioners W.A. 508/2008. 2 have got an alternate, effective and efficacious remedy, bypassing that remedy they could not have approached this court. Keeping that aspect of the matter in view, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. We do not see any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which would call for our interference. However, we grant liberty to the appellants, if they so desire, to question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Recovery Officer dated 13.11.2007 within fifteen days from today. If such an appeal is filed within the time granted by this court, the Tribunal is requested to consider the appeal on merits without reference to the period of limitation. All the contentions raised in the writ petition and in the writ appeal are left open. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.