The petitioner must pursue alternate statutory remedies available under relevant debt recovery laws rather than seeking extraordinary jurisdiction.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

…………………………................................

W.P.(C)No. 9822 of 2026 ….........................................................

Dated this the 12^th day of March 2026 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to defer the coercive measures taken for possessing the property, in pursuance of Ext.P2 Recovery Certificate issued by the Recovery Officer.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent–bank and the Recovery Certificate issued consequentially, are illegal. She also contended that the Recovery Officer is not entitled to issue Ext.P2 Recovery Certificate and thereby, appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and

2 opposed the said submission and contended that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 . Hence, he prayed that this Court may not invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.

5. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. As per Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 , any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under the Act can prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. If so, the petitioner can very well approach the Tribunal by filing an appeal wherein she can also challenge the vires of the order now passed by the Recovery Officer.

In such circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and the right of the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy.

Sd/-