IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 423 of 2010 (M/S) Sh. Yogesh Pal, adult, son of Shri Lekh Ram, resident of Village and P.O. Majri Grant, Pargana Parwadoon, District Dehradun. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Punjab National Bank, through its Zonal Manager, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun. 2. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, I.D.P.L. Virbhadra Branch, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. … Respondents. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Jain, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank. Date March 29, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- a. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned possession notice dated 20.2.2010 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition) issued by the Respondents. b. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. c. To award cost of the petition to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On the basis of instructions, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank has stated at the Bar that the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the respondent Bank on 12-1-2010. Intimation was given to the petitioner by registered post on 19-2- 2010. Photostat copy of the instruction be placed on record. 2 Learned counsel for the respondents-Bank has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an 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. Learned counsel for the Bank has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court 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, it has been 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 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 3 An effective alternate remedy of filing statutory appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is available to the petitioner. Hence I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. However, the petitioner may file an appeal as has been provided under Section 17 of the Act, if so advised. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5