Petitioner DMSlQNBEyCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV QUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUMiL KUiViAR SiNHA, J. Writ Apoeai No.58 of 2008 Vijav Verma, S/o Shri Parmeshvi/ar Lal Verma aged about 45 years, resident of Ramnivas, PP Complex, Ranchi (Jharkhand) Versus Dena Bank, a banking company duly ^ncorporated | under the reievant provisions ofl Banking companies (Acquisitlon and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 having inter alis amongst other branches a branch offlceat Jawahar Nagar, Raipur through the Genera! Manager, Dena Bank, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (Chhsttisyarh) ss. Ui LIHI 2. The Regional Office (Raipur) iorrpwers Grievances cilsposal ,Dena Bank, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Collector, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) under Section 2 (1S ofthe ChhatEisaarh Hiah Court (AeRcai to Dwision Bench) Act. 20S6 Shri Satish Agrawal, Gounsel for the appeliant. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for respondents No.1 &2 Shri Sumesh Bajaj, GovemmentAdvocatefQrthe State /respondent No.3. JUDQMENT (14tn August,2008) P The following Judgment of the Court was passed by tajeev Gupta.C.J. i ? ^l^ .'i'.;a- li'»: '<.. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) The appellant has fited this writ appea! against the Impugned order dated 19 Mareh, 2008 passed in WP(C) 1372/2008. 3) The appeiiant had filed Jhe writ petition for the foliowing reilefs: "A) A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the respondent Bank authorities to produce before this Hon'bie Court ali the releyant records for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. : B) A wrjt and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commsnding and directing the resDondent Bank authorittes to act in consonance with theiaw iaid dov/n in Para 45 of the Mardia Ghemicals Ltd's case and strictly In accordance with Sectlon 13(2) & (4) ofthe Act and the Rules 3-A & 4 of the Rules, 2002, as amended upto date, and prohibiting the respondent Bank authorities from taking possession of the said shops and movables since pre-conditions for exercise of those powers ha'v'e noi been foliowed by the authQrities. ( I: C) A wrlt and/or an order in the nature of writ of csrtiorari do Issus quashing the decision of respondent No.2 Committee dated 5.10.2007 and aiso the order of {he respondent No.3 - Gotlector dated 11.2.2008 as illegat, arbitrary and not in accordance wifh''law in ths facts and circumstances ofthe case. D) Cost of proceedings." 4) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties passed the Impugned order whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appeliant has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under jl'i"^ \\ o r^ Section 17of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiai Assets and Enforcement of Security Intersst Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act'). Para 18 of the impugned order reads as fotlows: "18. On the basisof the aforesaid analysls, this Court is of fhe consldered opinion fhat She petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the NPA Act to impugn the course taken by the respondent-Bank in taking possession of his movable and immovable property and if the procedure adopted by the respondent-Bank is not in sccordance with the provisions ofthe NPA Act.then DRT js entitted to restore the possessson ofthe property {p She petttioner uncterSection 17(3) ofthe NPA Act." ») Shri Safish Agrawat, learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the respondenVBank has not taken any action under Section 13(4) of the Act and the learned Singie Judge has erred in holding that the appeilant has an alternative efficacious remedy of fiting an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. 6) Shri'Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 referring to para 5 of the counter sffidsvit filed on behalf of the bank submitted that the bank has atready taken steps under Sectlon 1 3(4)_. of the Act. Learned Qounsel ' further submltted that the petitioner himself has admitted in para . 8.8 of the writ petition that the bank has taken action under Section 13(4)oftheAct. 7) The appeliant's pleadings in para 8.8:of the writ petition and the contents of para-5 of the counter affidavit filed OR behalf of the bank do not ieave any room for doubt that the bank ^.^y- : - lasass, 4 ~<- ^ ?>!.. padma ^ has aiready taken action against the appetiant under Section 13(4) of the Act. 8) We, therefore, do not find any substance in the above submissionsof learned counsel for (he appellant. 9) As the appeilant has the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act against the action taken by the bank under Section 13(4) of the Act, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the tearned Single Judge has declined to exerclse the discretionarv jurisdietion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10) • The writ appeal, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissedsummar Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge i1" 1 L