A party must exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking intervention from a writ court, ensuring respect for legal processes.

ORDER :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

Head learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In both these two writ petitions, the petitioner, by name M/s. All India Agri Gold Customers Agents Welfare Association, challenged the legal validity of the orders passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. In W.P.No.26880 of 2024, the orders passed by the Recovery Officer in R.P.No.723 of 2017 in O.A.No.686 of 2015 and R.P.No.160 of 2018 in O.S.No.685 of 2015 are under challenge and in W.P.No.27096 of 2024, the orders passed by the Recovery Officer in R.P.No.581 of 2017 in O.A.No.8 of 2016 and R.P.No.652 of 2017 in O.A.No.10 of 2016 are under challenge.

3. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in proceeding with auction of the properties pursuant to the orders passed by the Recovery Officer in the aforesaid proceedings as illegal and against to the principles of natural justice.

4. Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’), provides a right of appeal against the order of Recovery Officer. Therefore, the aggrieved persons have to approach the appellate authority to challenge the legal validity of the orders of Recovery Officer. So, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Recovery Officer, it has to avail the said remedy of approaching the appellate authority by way of preferring an appeal and without exhausting the said remedy, it cannot approach the writ Court to challenge the said orders.

5. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter and without touching the facts and merits of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the appellate authority under Section 30 of the Act to challenge the impugned orders of the Recovery Officer within a period of thirty days from the date of this order. In case the petitioner approaches the appellate authority challenging the orders of the Recovery Officer, the appellate authority shall dispose of the said appeals expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the appeals.

6. Since this Court has passed interim order dated 06.12.2024 in W.P.No.26880 of 2024, granting stay of all further proceedings initiated by the respondent-bank, and has also passed interim order dated 03.01.2025 in W.P.No.27096 of 2024, to maintain status quo regarding possession of the property in question, the said interim orders shall remain in force till the respective appeals are filed before the appellate authority by the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate interim relief before the appellate authority.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in these cases shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.