Sasmita Behera vs Branch Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 114 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         W.P.(C) No.14994 of 2017

        Sasmita Behera                        ....                Petitioner
                                                                      None
                                           -versus-
        Branch Manager, UCO
        Bank, Angul & Others              ....          Opposite Parties
                                  Mr. B.N. Udgata, Advocate for the Bank


                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
                       JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

                                     ORDER (Oral)

03.01.2023 Order No. (Hybrid Mode)

04. 1. Petitioner is the guarantor for a loan availed for a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- by her husband, namely Sudarsan Behera from UCO Bank, Khamar Branch, in the district of Angul in the year 2005. Due to default in payment of installments, the Bank filed O.A. No.158 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack, which was allowed by an order dated 21.10.2014. The Recovery Officer pursuant to the said order/decree initiated the process of recovery.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the judgment/order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the DRT as also a mandamus to the Recovery Officer not to proceed for proclamation of the sale of the property of the petitioner, i.e., guarantor.

// 2 //

3. Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that for challenge to the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the DRT, the proper forum is to file an appeal before the DRAT, Kolkata and thus the writ is not maintainable. Secondly he states that for any order passed by the Recovery Officer, there is an appeal provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Therefore, the prayer on that account is also not maintainable in writ jurisdiction, apart from providing no cause of action to maintain a writ.

4. We find that since the filing of the present writ petition on 25.07.2017, neither the defects have been removed nor any effort has been made for listing of the case. Even otherwise none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

5. In view of the above and efflux of time, it can be safely construed that the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the present writ petition.

6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge AKK 3rd January, 2023 Cuttack