Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Kushal Kant, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3.

2. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 3.9.2002 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and order dated 30 11.2006 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissing the appeal No. 224 of 2002 filed against the order of the Recovery Officer.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to entertainability of this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate tribunal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal hence the writ petition need not be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed on Division Bench judgement Delhi High Court reported in II (2004) Banking Cases 348 (DB) continental Construction Ltd. &. Ors State Bank of India & ors.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners refuting the preliminary objection of learned Counsel for the respondents contended that no remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners against the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel submitted that the order dated 30.11.2006 has been passed by the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate power under Section 30 of the Act. He submits that no appeal is contemplated under Section 20 against an order passed by the Tribunal in exorcise of its appellate jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgements of the apex Court- on AIR 1963 S.C.1503, Roop Chandra v. State of Punjab. Another judgement relied by him on a judgement of the apex Court in 2002 (2) Bank CLR 272 (SC), Union of India and another v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and another.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. The question which has arisen in this writ petition is as to whether against the appellate order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Under Section 30 of the Act, a further appeal can be filed under Section 20 of the Act? For answering this question scheme of the Act has to be looked into, Section 2 (a) defines “Appellate Tribunal” as an Appellate Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of Section 8. Section 2 (o) defines “Tribunal” means the Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of Section 3 Section 20 provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Section 20 (1) which is relevant in the present case is quoted below : "20(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.”

7. A perusal of provisions of Section 20 (1) indicate that the “appeal is provided against an order made, or deemed to have been made by a tribunal. Other relevant provision for purpose of this case is Section 30 of the Act. Section 30 of the Act has been amended by Act No. 1 of 2000. Prior to its amendment Section 30 provided :

“30. The orders of the Recovery Officer be deemed as orders of the Tribunal.—Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 29, the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his power Under Section 25 to 28 (both inclusive), shall be deemed to have been made by the Tribunal and an appeal against such order shall lie to the appellate Tribunal.”

8. Thus Section 30 as originally enacted provided an appeal against an order ‘of Recovery Officer to the appellate Tribunal and the order of Recovery Officer was deemed to be an order of Tribunal. Section 30 was amended with effect from 17.1.2000 and now amended Section provides as under :

“30