IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1255 of 2008 (M/S) Srimati Paramjeet Kaur Anand, W/O Sri Gurmail Singh Anand, R/O Sheesmahal, Kathgodam, district Nainital and four others. ………….. Petitioners. Versus Central Bank of India, through Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch Mallital, Nainital and two others. ………Respondents. Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.K.Sah, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2-Bank. Date August 07, 2008 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners files affidavit of service. The same is taken on record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (a)To issue a an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside and quashing the notice dated 22.05.2008 issued by the respondent no. 2 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short the Act). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Bank not to dispose of the flats of the petitioners in pursuance of notice dated 22.05.2008 until and unless the loan has first been adjusted fro m the property of the borrower and the guarantors. (c) Such other relief be granted, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and award cost to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are bona fide purchasers of the flats situated at village Kahalkweera, Patti Bhawali, District Nainital, which were sold by respondent no.3 stating and making to believe that the land and flats are free from encumbrance, mortgage, loan, etc. either government or private. The sale deed was registered in the name of petitioner no. 2 on 3-9- 2004, in the name of petitioner no. 3 on 9-3-2005, in the name of petitioner no. 4 on 6-7-2005 and in the name of petitioner no. 1 on 3-4-2007. The respondent no.3 appears to have taken loan on land on which the flats are constructed and has mortgaged this land and building with the Central Bank of India, but concealed this important fact from the petitioners in view to take advantages of this fact with an oblique motive. The respondent no. 3 in collusion with the concerned officers of the Bank managed to produce original sale deed at the time of registration of sale deed to inspire confidence to the petitioners for the transaction being bona fide and to believe that land and the buildings standing thereon are free from all encumbrances. According to the petitioners, one guarantor of this loan is Bank Officer but the respondent-Bank is not disclosing the names of the guarantors, rather the Bank lodged FIR against the petitioners. On 11-10-2007 the Bank lodged FIR against respondent no. 3 and all the petitioners under Section 406 I.P.C. and then the petitioners came to know that the respondent no. 3 had taken some loan on the land and the flats constructed thereon have been sold to the petitioners. The petitioners filed two criminal writ petitions No. 1107 of 2007 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2007 and challenged the FIR dated 11-10-2007 wherein interim relief has been granted and arrest of the petitioner has been stayed vide order dated 24-10-2007 and 27-10-2007. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not the borrowers of loan while the loan was taken by the respondent no. 3, who had executed sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners, while the respondent-Blank has not even initiated any proceedings against the guarantors of the loan advanced to respondent no.3. The contention of the petitioners is that no notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioners, hence the respondent–Bank could not have proceeded under Section 13(4) of the Act against the petitioners. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Prima facie it appears that although the petitioners are not the borrowers, but they are aggrieved from the notice dated 22- 5-2008 issued by the respondent no. 2 under Section 13(4) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners had alternate remedy of statutory appeal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short the Act) to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the case of Smt. Alpana Shankar Vs. Union Bank of India and another reported in 2005(1) U.D., 692 in paragraph No.6, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- “6.Admittedly, the petitioner was given notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the petitioner failed to discharge the liabilities within sixty days, the respondent Bank is entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures mentioned under section 13(4) of the said Act to recover the secured debt. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such action taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act, the petitioner has a right of appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the said Act. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is not clear whether the respondents have taken any action under Section 13(4) of the Act. If any such action has already been taken or as and when such action is taken, the petitioner can approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act for redressal of her grievance. For this reason also, this Court cannot interfere in the matter in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Unless there are extreme and compelling circumstances, the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the party has got an effective alternate remedy available under the Statute. The petitioner has not made out any such extreme and compelling circumstance to persuade this Court to exercise the jurisdication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” An effective alternate remedy of filing statutory appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is available to the petitioners. Hence I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. However, the petitioners may file an appeal as has been provided under Section 17 of the Act, if so advised. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioners by tomorrow on payment of usual charges. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP