JUDGMENT :

1. By this intra court appeal the appellant (writ petitioner) has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th December, 2022 passed in WPA 27227 of 2022 whereby the petition has been disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT.

2. The appellant had approached the writ court claiming herself to be the wife of the borrower and challenging the memo of the bank dated 05.11.2022 relating to the deposit of police cost for the purpose of taking possession in pursuance to the orders which were passed under the SARFAESI Act as against the borrower.

3. Learned Single Judge has considered the legal position and has also taken note of the fact that the cause of action arose much earlier on 18th March, 2019 when the bank had issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Learned Single Judge has also noted the order of the District Magistrate dated 24th August, 2022 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Considering the said position, learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT within a specified time and has also extended the limitation for filing the application under Section 17(1) of the Act till that time.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was demanding the documents specially notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act so that the appropriate action could be taken by the appellant and that the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the petition without examining the same.

5. The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the bank by submitting that the counsel for the bank had supplied a copy of the notice under Section 13(2) to counsel for the appellant during the course of argument before the learned Single Judge and today also the counsel for the bank is ready to supply the same to counsel for the appellant.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that undisputedly proceedings under Section the SARFAESI Act have been initiated against the borrower and the District Magistrate had also passed the order under Section 14 of the Act. Learned counsel for the bank has informed that thereafter the possession has also been taken. During the course of hearing before this Court learned counsel for the bank has also supplied another copy of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act to the counsel for the appellant.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has acted in consonance with the settled legal position that the party aggrieved with the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act should avail the statutory remedy before the DRT.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Another v. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 after taking note of the earlier judgments on the point has held that:

“10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCC pp. 123 & 128, paras 43 & 55)

“43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this Rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other finan