ff v), HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritADDealNo.364of2010 APPELLANT Respondent No.3 Agroha Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, through its President, Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, son of Late Shri R.L. Agrawal, Sidharth Chowk, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versys RESPONDENTS: Petitioner Respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 Respondent No.4 Smt. Alka Sewak, wife of Shri Arvind Sewak, aged about 46 years, resident of Near Water Tank Samta Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh State Bank of India, through the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Fafadih Branch, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chandela Housing Private Limited, 70, Anand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Central Bureau of Investigation, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsel for the appellant. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N.Chandrakar. JJ. JUD6MENT (28-10-2010) The following judgment ofthe Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. Respondent No.l/petitioner filed a writ petition for quashing the entire recovery proceeding as void, non est in the eyes of law in respectof the property belonging to the petitioner and other ancillaries reliefs against the respondent Bank. The writ petition has been dismissed with an observation that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002'). The ^ffi^ instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant who was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ petition. 2. Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant referring to Section 31 of the Act of 2002, argued that the provisions of the Act were not applicable jn the facts of the present case, as the altotment made by the appellant in favour of respondent No.1 does not create any absolute right in her favour butcreates an additional interest subject to the provisions contained under the bye-laws and the bank has committed a serious lapse by sanctioning loan against mortgage ofthe above property by respondent No.1. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. P Writ petition filed by respondent No.l/petitioner has been dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. In these circumstances, the instant writ appeal that too at the instance of appellant who was arrayed as respondent in the petition cannot be entertained and we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in writ appeal. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Barve