HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR DtVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HOhS'BLE SUNIL KUMAR SSNHA, J. ^} ADpeiiants Petitionsrs Respondents WrjtJ^^ea!No,314of20M 1 Kuideep Sahu, son of Shri Chndrika Sahu, aged about 34 years, Proprietor M/s. Sant Kablr Storage (Gramln), Viiiage Dhu!na, Navapara Rajim, District Raipur, Resident of Viilage Dhulna, Tahsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 Dr Chandrika Sahu, son of !ate Shivcharan Sahu, aged about 60 years, Resident of Viliage Dhulna, Tahsil and District Rajpur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Chief Secretary, General Adminjstration Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantraiay, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 National Agricuitural and Rural Development Bank (NABARD), through Branch Manager, NABARD, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 Genera! Manager, Apex Bank (CG Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit) Pandari Cloth Market, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 Branch Manager, Apex Bank (CG Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit) RDA Building, Sharda Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) A@&eal under Section 2 Clause (1) ofthe Chhattisaarh H|5h^oyrt_(Ap^ea[to Dlvssion BenchLAct^_2006. Present; Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Smt Meera Jaiswai, counsel for the appeilants. Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Deputy Government Advocate for the State / respondent No.1 . Judament -th (25In February, 2010) The foilowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri HB Agrawal, learned Senior counsel forthe appellants is heard on admlssion. 2) The appeilants have filed this writ appea! against the impugned order dated 20.10.2009, passed in WP(C) No.3919/2009. 3) Appellants / petitioners sought the foilowing reliefs in their writ petition: "(i) The Respondent No.3 be directed to release the possession back to the petitioners relating to godown which has been attached, further respondent No.3 and 4 be directed to release the subsidy amount at Rs. 18.75 lacs in favour of petitioners and adjust all the dues upto date by reieasing the excess amount to the petitioners while giving back to possession, likewise respondent No.1 and 2 be directed to secure that the petitioners are getting Rs.35/- per MT per month as rent as per Annexure P-10, so that instatlments and interest be paid within time and petitioners can not starve. (ii) Cost of the petition be awarded and e Any other relief or direction which the Hon'bie Court may deems fit, be also awarded." 4) The learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners held that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financiai Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 5) Shri HB Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the appeilants vehemently argued that the respondent / Bank has illegally taken possession of the appellants' assets and the appellants are prepared to repay the entire amount due in case the amount of subsidy is released in favour of the appellants. 6) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Senior Counse! for the appellants, we do not find any exceptional circumstance warranting interference in the matter, where the appellants have an aiternative, efficacious, statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 7) The writ appeal, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. _ -— Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu