A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against an order of a Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, when a statutory appeal is available under Section 30 of the Act.

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

As the principal issue raised in these writ petitions is in relation to the orders passed by the Recovery Officer in dismissing the claim petitions that were filed by the claim petitioners, who are third parties to the loan transaction, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.26875 of 2014, 26913 of 2014, 32284 of 2015 and 32291 of 2015 are the claim petitioners, who are third parties to the loan transaction. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.37272 of 2014 and 33389 of 2015 are the principal borrowers.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The principal borrowers availed loan from the State Bank of India and offered certain immovable properties as security for repayment of the loan amount. As the principal borrowers committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the bank has initiated measures under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’) by way of selling the secured assets in the auction.

5. The claim petitioners claimed to have right and title over the secured assets and challenging the very mortgage of the said secured assets by the principal borrowers, they have filed claim petitions before the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer dismissed the said claim petitions by the impugned orders on the ground that the claim petitioners are minors and no steps were taken to appoint a guardian to them to file any such claim petition before the Recovery Officer. The same being the main ground for dismissal of the claim petitions, the Recovery Officer dismissed the claim petitions on other grounds also by the impugned orders.

6. The writ petitions are opposed by the respondents mainly on the ground that an appeal lies under Section 30 of the Act against the impugned orders passed by the Recovery Officer.

7. Therefore, when a right of appeal is provided to the claim petitioners under Section 30 of the Act, they have to avail the said remedy and they cannot challenge the orders of the Recovery Officer by way of filing writ petitions before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the claim petitioners to avail the said remedy of preferring an appeal against the impugned orders of the Recovery Officer before the appellate authority under Section 30 of the Act. If the claim petitioners intend to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority, they shall prefer the appeal within four weeks from the date of this order. The petitioners can also seek condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the grounds available to them under law, including under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, before the appellate authority. Further, the claim petitioners, if at all, intend to adduce any evidence in support of their claim, they can as well request the appellate authority either to permit them to adduce evidence before it or to remand the matter to the Recovery Officer to enable them to adduce evidence in support of their claim. If any such request, as is made before this Court, is made before the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall pass appropriate orders on it also. It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and it is for the appellate authority to decide the lis on merits according to law.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.