IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8796 of 2011 MOST.MEENA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE DINESH PRASAD YADAV @ DINESH KUMAR YADAV AT KUMHARAR, POLICE CHAUKI, P.O. LOHIA NAGAR, P.S. AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA……………………………………..…..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE INDIAN OVERSEASE BANK, MAURYA HOTEL COMPLEX, PATNA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PATNA. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEASE BANK, MAURYA HOTEL COMPLEX, PATNA. 3. THE SUN CASTING PVT. LTD. RUKMANI CHAMBER,BRINDAWAN NURSHING HOME P.S.GANDHI MAIDAN, EXHIBITION ROAD PATNA-1. 4. AJAY KUMAR SON OF GOURI SHANKER PRASAD, RESIDENT OF Q-NO.3, M.S. 8/5, BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, P.S. AGAMKUA, DIST. PATNA. 5. RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE RAJKUMAR VERMA, RESIDENT OF KHASMAHAL MORE CHIRAYATAL, P.S. KANERBAGH, DIST.-PATNA. 6. SMT. BIMALA PD. WIFE OF GOURI SHANKER PD., RESIDENT OF Q-NO.3, M.S. 8/5, BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, P.S. AGAMKUA, DIST. PATNA. 7. PRAVIN KUMAR SON OF SRI C.V. LAL, RESIDENT OF Q- NO.3, M.S. 8/5 BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, P.S. AGAMKUA, DIST. PATNA. 8. SMT. NANDA VERMA, W/O RAJKISHORE VERMA, RESIDENT OF KHASMAHAL MORE CHIRAYATAL, P.S. KANKERBAGH, DIST. PATNA. 9. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATNA…………………………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s Shardanand Mishra and Alok Ranjan, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ----------- 02/ 19.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging orders dated 30.04.2010 and 07.03.2011 by which the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna rejected petitioner’s objection dated 23.01.2009 in R.P. Case No.10 of 2007. - 2 - 3. From the provisions of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity), it is quite apparent that there is a proper and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner by way of filing an appeal under the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, disputed questions of fact are involved in the instant case which can be considered and decided by the appellate authority and not by this court in its writ jurisdiction. In the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition in order to avail the opportunity of appeal as provided in the Act. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. If such an appeal is filed before the authority concerned by the petitioner within 15 days from today along with a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the said authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law. If the petitioner wants any interim relief, she should file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority, who shall consider and decide the same immediately. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)