NRIPENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA, J.

( 1 ) THE main revisional application is taken up for hearing along with the application for interim order in view of the Court's order dated 6-2-1996 Both the matters are disposed of by the following order.

( 2 ) HEARD the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Supriya Ranjan Saha and the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1, Bank of India, Mr. Utpal Bose appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee. Mr. Banerjee undertakes to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Bank of India in course of this day. Let that undertaking be recorded. Considered the materials on record. The Power filed in Court just now be kept on record. By the instant application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and/or final order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 3rd August, 1995, in Original Application No. 86 of 1994, by which the Tribunal adjudged the petitioners as debtors and further held that the applicant-Bank is entitled to realise a sum of Rs. 10,08,889. 73 from the petitioners. This judgment and/or final order has been challenged in the instant revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) IN this background Mr. Chatterjee contended that the Court can interfere and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. For the purpose of showing that the Court has the power to interfere under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Chatterjee referred to Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (which term will be referred to herein as 'the Act') and also certain decisions, namely, the State of U. P. v. District Judge, Unnao, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1401 : (1984 All LJ 175), Thakur Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , reported in AIR 1967 SC 1494 : (1967 0 Crlj 1380) and Raghu Nandan v. W. B. Board of Secondary Education, reported in 1992 (1) CLJ 52 Mr. Chatterjee submitted that those decisions have been referred to for the purpose of showing in principle that in the appropriate cases the High Court can interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) MR. Bose on the other hand contended that there is no dispute that the Court has the power under Art. 227 of the Constitution of Indiato interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in an appropriate case but the same power or application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be converted to a power in appeal. In other words, Art. 227 of the Constitution cannot be converted as an appellate power. For that Mr. Bose relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Miss Maneck Custodji Surjarji v. Sarafazali Nawabali Mirza, reported in AIR 1976 SC 244

( 5 ) MR. Bose further contended that Art. 227 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised ordinarily and it must be exercised very sparingly in an appropriate case. Mr. Bose further submitted that the Act provides in Section 20 the provision for appeal and by-passing that Art. 227 cannot be resorted to as an alternative remedy.

( 6 ) HEARD the submissions of the learned Advocate for the parties and considering the materials on record, it appears that admittedly this is a revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and/or final order passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, there is a provision in the Act, being Section 20 providing appeal against such judgment and/or order. Admittedly, Section 18 of the Act operates as a bar of jurisdiction regarding the Courts or other alternative forum for exercising any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 1

(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document