(1) The petitioner raises an interesting question relating to Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner says that notwithstanding the expression "any person" appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 17, it would appear from sub-section (3) thereof that it is only a borrower, within the definition of the said Act, who may effectively exercise the right of appeal under Section 17 of the Act.

(2) The petitioner claims to be the owner of a land at premises No. 384/1, Sahara Sukanta Nagar within the Madhyamgram Municipality near the airport. The petitioner says that the land measuring 4 cottah and a bit had been gifted by her brother under a registered document. The land has apparently been mutated in favour of the petitioner by the Madhyamgram Municipality and the petitioner has put up a building thereat upon obtaining due sanction of a plan therefor. The G + 2 building has five flats and two shop rooms. It appears from the petition that there must have been a development agreement as the petitioner refers to one flat on the second floor as being the owners allocation. The petitioner claims to be entitled to possession of such flat.

(3) The petition narrates that on March 27, 2009 when the petitioner was away in Hooghly she received a call from the occupant of the neighbouring flat that officials of the respondent bank had apparently taken possession of her flat by affixing a notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act of 2002 on the front door of the flat and by sealing the main entrance by putting padlocks thereon. The petition speaks of the respondent Nos. 13 and 14 having obtained credit facilities from the bank. The petitioner says that it is only on March 31, 2009, following a visit to the Wood Street Branch of ICICI Bank, that the petitioner was informed that the borrowers had obtained the credit facilities against such flat as security. The bank officials produced a deed of conveyance and it is the petitioners case that both the photograph and the signature of the petitioner in the purported document did not match. The petitioner says that the document is forged or has been manufactured,

(4) Upon the petition being received on April 8, 2009, no interim order was passed but the matter was directed to be heard out expeditiously and the point of maintainability of the writ petition was kept open. When the petition next appeared on May 14, 2009, the bank assured that it would take no further steps in respect of the flat. The bank claimed to be in possession of the flat. The petitioner was put on notice that there was an efficacious alternative remedy available to her under Section: 17 of the said Act but the petitioner insisted that this was the only forum that a person in her position could approach. The matter has since been heard out.

(5) There are two principal hurdles before the merits of the petitioners grievance can be addressed. If the petitioner fails at either, the petition cannot be proceeded with. ICICI Bank says that it is a private bank which is not subject to any control by the State and as such is not amenable to this jurisdiction. More importantly, it appears that in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act. of 2.002, the Court should not proceed to adjudicate upon the merits of the matter. It is such second issue which is taken up first.

(6) The petitioner says that notwithstanding Section 17 of the said Act permitting any person aggrieved by any of the measures taken by a secured creditor under Section 13 (4) of the Act to carry an appeal to the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal, subsection (3) implies that it is only the borrower who may prefer, an appeal and not any person who claims to be affected by the measures taken by a secured creditor but has no contractual relationship with the secured creditor.

(7) The definition of a borrower in Section 2(1