IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8005 of 2008 M/S LAXMAN WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD Versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 7 8/9/2008 Reference may be made to the order of this Court dated 3.9.2008 passed in this case. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Recovery Officer in R.P. Case No. 79 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, order of attachment of immovable property of the petitioner has been passed in pursuance of recovery of amount of certificate issued by the Presiding Officer. Counsel for the petitioner realizing the position that when earlier order of similar kind was issued by the Recovery Officer on 6.7.2006 and 19.7.2006, the petitioner had moved the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and had also got certain relief by order dated 5.9.2006, would now submit that as there is statutory alternative remedy against the impugned order dated 30.4.2008 he will not press this 2 application. In the opinion of this Court, counsel is correct because it has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of “ Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C. Krishnan & Ors.” reported in (2001) 6 S.C.C. 569 that the Recovery of Debt and Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), is self contained Act providing a forum for appeal and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution would not be available to a person, who can avail statutory alternative remedy. This aspect of the matter has been also reiterated by this Court in the case of “Union Bank of India Vs. M/S Kwality Paper (P) Ltd. & Anr.” in L.P.A. No. 564 of 2004 disposed of on 16.7.2004 and also in the case of “M/S Kavita Pigments & Chemicals (P) Ltd. & Ors Vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors.” reported in 2000 (1) P.L.J.R. 999. Thus, this writ application is held to be not maintainable when issues are still pending before the Presiding Officer in M.A. No. 7 of 2006, and the learned 3 counsel for the petitioner has correctly sought leave to withdraw this application. In view of the fact that the order dated 30.4.2008, which was subject matter of this writ application, is appealable order under section 30 of the Act and such appeal was not filed by the petitioner on account of filing of this writ application, it would be open for the petitioner to make prayer for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. With the aforementioned observation this application is dismissed as withdrawn. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar