ORDER

Date : 22.12.2021 (Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ)

Heard Mr. M. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.

Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent no. 3 as well as Mr. N. C. Das, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 4.

The petitioner’s deceased father, who was the proprietor of a tea estate in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam, had taken a loan from the respondent bank which could not be repaid and, consequently, his loan account was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The bank thereafter, in the year 2010, filed Original Application No. 13/2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of the loan amount with interest from the petitioner tea estate. By an order dated 06.08.2014, the Original Application was allowed by the DRT, Guwahati and, accordingly, a Recovery Certificate was issued by the DRT, Guwahati, for an amount of Rs. 5,10,99,622/-, which was due from the petitioner with interest. Meanwhile, the respondent no. 4, namely, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation had also issued a Certificate dated

09.11.2016 for an amount of Rs. 5,54,26,754.18, which was due to the respondent no. 4 from the petitioner as arrear Provident Fund of the tea workers working in the tea estate owned by the petitioner.

We have been informed by the learned counsel for the respondent bank that the petitioner’s liability, as of now, runs to more than Rupees Twenty-two Crore, although this particular amount has been disputed by the petitioner. By now, a Certificate of Sale dated 20.10.2021 has been issued by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Guwahati, under section 25 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for sale of the property mortgaged by the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid Certificate of Sale dated 20.10.2021 issued by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Guwahati.

Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent bank has submitted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy to challenge the Certificate of Sale issued by the Recovery Officer by filing an appeal before the DRT under section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which 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 inquiry 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).”

We have also been informed that the DRT, Guwahati, is presently functioning as the Presiding Officer is available now.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that since there is a statutory remedy for the petitioner tofileappealunder section30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the impugned order passed by the Recovery Officer, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty given to the petitioner to file appeal before the DRT. At this juncture, we may also note that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has referred to a Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure-I to the writ petition), which is signed between the auction purchaser, respondent no. 3 (i.e. respondent bank) and the respondent no. 4 (i.e. Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation) and has alleged fraud and connivance of the bank authorities.

We make it clear that the writ petitioner will be at liberty to also raise this aspect in his app