WP(C) 101/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr N Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr S Sarma, learned c ounsel for the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure- 8 auction sale notice dated 4.12.2008 published in a Bengali Daily Sainik Sonar Cachar . A debt recovery proceeding vide Original Application No being OA No 46 of 2002 was initiated by the respond ent bank against one Ashok Kumar Roy of whom the present petitioners are legal h eirs. Such proceeding was initiated on default of repayment of loan obtained by late Ashok Kumar Roy. The Debt Recovery Tribunal vide its order dated 12.6.2003 issued certificate in favour of the respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,88,096/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till actual payment made by the defendant- petitioners . It appears that pursuant to the said order, the judgment-debtor made certain pay ments and thereafter by Annexure- 4 application dated 9.1.2004 undertook to pay further payment and thereafter he made another application dated 25.2.2004 makin g offer for amicable settlement of the matter. By Annexure- 5 application filed by the judgment-debtor in OA No 46/2002 (filed on 16.1.2004) made a prayer for granting reasonable time and to stay the attachm ent process pf immovable properties. By Annexure- 6 order dated 20.7.2006, the Recovery Officer, DRT, held that since the properties in question are in the joi nt name of the defaulter and his wife, there would be attachment of half share o f the properties after observing necessary formalities. Thereafter, upon attachm ent of the properties, the order for auction sale notice (Annexure- 8) was issue d. Mr N Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since only half s hare of the properties would be attached, the Recovery Officer could not have is sued the impugned Annexure-8 auction sale notice in respect of the entire proper ties. On the other hand, Mr S Sarma, representing the respondent Bank submits that sin ce half share was apportioned on the request of the judgment- debtor and after h is death the legal heirs having stepped into his shoes, the Annexurre- 8 action sale notice was rightly issued. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex C ourt reported in (2001) 6 SCC 569 (Punjab National Bank Vs O C Krishnan and othe rs ) so as to contend that the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Co nstitution of India is not maintainable in view of specific provisions for appea l being there in the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institution s Act, 1993. In this connection, he has referred to section 30 of the Act which provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Recovery Officer ma y prefer an appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days. The instant writ petition was filed on 16.1.2009 against Annexure- 8 order dated 11.12.2008. Since then matter is pending in this Court with the interim order p assed by this Court on 16.1.2009. Apart from the fact that there is no challenge to the parent order passed by the Tribunal and there being alternative remedy available to the petitioners, in th e normal circumstances, the writ Court will be reluctant to interfere with the m atter. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Recovery Officer has passe d the impugned order beyond his jurisdiction or that the order has been passed i n violation of any statutory provision. Considering the matter in its entirety and having regard to the fact that the or der is appellable one and following the decision in the Punjab Nationa Bank (sup ra), this writ petition is disposed of providing that the petitioners will be at liberty to prefer an appeal, if so advised, against the impugned order. In the event of preferring such an appeal, the Tribunal shall consider the same condoni ng the delay for the period during which the instant writ petition was pending i n this Court. The interim order passed by this Court on 16.1.2009 stands vacated.