ORDER :

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application:

1. Heard.

2. Cause shown for the delay in filing the restoration application is sufficient. The delay is condoned.

3. The application is allowed.

Order on Civil Misc. Review Application:

1. Heard Shri Saurabh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the review-applicant and Shri Anjani Kumar Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The present review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 19.04.2021 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9803 of 2021 (Union Bank of India vs. Additional District Magistrate, Meerut and Others).

3. Facts in brief in the present case are that the writ petition in question was filed by the petitioner challenging the decision taken by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Meerut dated 30.10.2019 by which the application filed by the Bank under sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 seeking physical possession of the property was rejected.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 19.04.2021 on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy to the petitioner as provided under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The order passed by the Writ Court dated 19.04.2021 is reads as follows:

“The matter is taken up through Video Conferencing. Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent no. 1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 30.11.2019 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002.

In the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 wherein in paragraph 42 and 43 it is held:

“42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No. 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression `any person' used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.

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 financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.”

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the petitioner has a remedy against the said order u