ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

M/s Chandwa Ceramic Works along with its proprietor and guarantor approached the writ Court challenging the order dated 14th November 2017 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in RP Case No. 338 of 2016.

2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel, assisted by Mrs. Sunita Ojha, the learned counsel, appears for the Bank of India.

3. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.3 who is the successful bidder and purchaser of 2.30 acres of land, corresponding to Khewat No.3, Tauji No.1, Thana No.285, Khata No.140, Jamabandi, Holding No.15, Plot No.993, Thana: Chandwa, District: Latehar, Jharkhand, which was the secured property mortgaged with the Bank.

4. By an order dated 12th March 2018, the writ Court declined to entertain challenge laid by the writ petitioners, who are appellants before us, to the reserve price for the mortgaged properties and held the writ petition not maintainable in view of the judgment in “Authorized Officer, State Bank Of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K.C.” reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85.

5. The writ Court vide order dated 12th March 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 806 of 2018 dismissed the writ petition, holding as under :

“6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record and the laws applicable in this regard, it appears that admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any appeal against the order passed by the respondent no.2 in R.P. Case No. 338 of 2016. Under the said factual background, the provisions of the Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder are required to be considered.

7. Section 30 of the Act reads as under:-

“30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.

(2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such enquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under Sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).”

8. On plain reading of Section 30 of the Act, 1993, it would be evident that any person being aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer passed under the Act, 1993 can prefer appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993.

9. The Hon?ble Supreme Court while discussing the scope of judicial intervention in such matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a recent judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1281 of 2018 (Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C.) has held as under:

“16. It is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law stands well settled. Any departure, if permissible, has to be for reasons discussed, of the case falling under a defined exception, duly discussed after noticing the relevant law. In financial matters grant of exparte interim orders can have a deleterious effect and it is not sufficient to say that the aggrieved has the remedy to move for vacating the interim order. Loans by financial institutions are granted from public money generated at the tax payers expense. Such loan does not become the property of the person taking the loan, but retains its character of public money given in a fiduciary capacity as entrustment by the public. Timely repayment also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need, by circulation of the money and cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same. The caution required, as expressed in Satyawati Tandon (supra), has also not been kept in mind before passing the impugned interim order:-

“46. It must