The main legal point established is that the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, being a special legislation, prevails upon the general law and confers exclusive jurisdiction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal for claims above Rs. 10.00 lakhs, overriding the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act.

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

1. By this common order, both these writ applications are disposed of since issues involved are identical.

2. Challenge in both these writ applications is to the orders dated 1.2.2008 6.2.2008 passed by the Certificate Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 2) in C.C. No. 120(BL) of 2007-2008 and C.C. No. 123 (BL) of 2007-08 respectively, whereby the objection of the petitioners against continuation of the certificate proceeding for recovery of the debt due to the respondent Bank before the Certificate Officer, was rejected,

3. The petitioners in both these writ applications, who are referred to as "debtors" had obtained loan from the respondent Bank. The principal amount of debt payable by the petitioners was above Rs. 11 lakhs excluding interest.

Consequent upon failure of the petitioners to repay the debt amount, the respondent Bank filed two separate cases before the Certificate Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act against the petitioners individually for realisation of the debt amounts.

Certificate proceedings vide C.C. No. 120 (BL) of 2007-08 against the petitioner of WP(C) No. 1070 of 2008 and C.C. No. 123 (BL) of 2007-08 against the petitioner of WP(C) No. 1074 of 2008 were initiated. Notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act was issued and served upon the petitioners in each of the certificate proceedings. The petitioners appeared in the proceedings and filed their respective objections under Section 9 of the Act, praying for dismissal of the certificate proceedings primarily on the ground that the Certificate Officer lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the bank and to proceed for recovery of the debt amount, since such jurisdiction was barred under the provisions of Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

4. By the impugned orders, the Certificate Officer summarily rejected the objections and directed the petitioners to pay off the claim amount, within the dates stipulated in the impugned orders, else coercive measure for recovery would follow.

Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioners have filed the instant writ applications.

5. Dwelling upon the grounds advanced in these writ petitions, Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners explains by referring to the provisions of Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, that the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993) has been brought in the Statute Books as a special enactment in respect of the debts owed to any Bank or Financial Institution or to a consortium of Banks or Financial Institutions which stipulates that where the amount of debt exceeds Rs. 10.00 lakhs or such other amount, the claim for recovery can be adjudicated upon by the Debt Recovery Tribunals established under the Act.

Learned Counsel explains that definition of 'banks' as given in the Act of 1993 brings within its fold the respondent Bank is. It is further explained that the Act of 1993 also contains provision of an establishment of Debt Recovery Tribunal and also provision for establishment of an Appellate Tribunal.

Referring to the impugned orders, learned Counsel submits that the learned Certificate Officer has assumed the authority without jurisdiction and has committed serious error by summarily rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners without discussing the grounds of objection in proper perspective.

Learned Counsel adds further that since the impugned orders have been passed without jurisdiction, the petitioners have a right to avail the remedy under the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the counter plea taken by the respondent Bank, against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal available against the impugned orders under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, is totally