Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar Sharma vs Bank Of Baroda Through The General ... on 11 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14797 of 2018
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Sharma Son of Rameshwar Sharma Resident of Near Mahadev
Mandir, Baipass Roas, Ashok Bihar, P.O. Chandchaura, P.S. Civil Lines,
District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bank Of Baroda Through The General Manager and Ors
2. Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda Gaya Main Branch, Rathod Bhawan,
Swarajpuri Road, Gaya.
3. Branch Manager, Bank of of Baroda, Swarajpuri Road, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish Kumar No-2
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-07-2025
1. The Petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
That this writ application is
being filed for issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/order, direction/
directions for setting aside the
Possession notice dated 07.04.2018
issued by the Respondent No. 2,
whereby and whereunder the
respondent bank informed the petitioner
to take possession of the part and parcel
(Old), 3434 (New) Ward No. 23, Mohalla-
Patna High Court CWJC No.14797 of 2018 dt.11-07-2025
Ashok Bihar Colony, Gaya, and/or for any
other relief or reliefs to which the
petitioner may be found entitled
encourse of hearing of this Writ
application.
2. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon,
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, held as follows:
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. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14797 of 2018 dt.11-07-2025
the legislations enacted by
Parliament and State Legislatures for
recovery of such dues are a 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,
the 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.
4. In case of Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors
(Mumbai) (P) Ltd., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
97. This court has time and
again, reminded the high courts that
they should not entertain petition
under article 226 of the constitution if
an effective remedy is available to
the aggrieved person under the
provisions of the SARFAESI ACT.
5. In case of PHR Invent Educational
Society Vs UCO Bank & Ors reported in 2024
Patna High Court CWJC No.14797 of 2018 dt.11-07-2025
Insc 297, the same principles have also been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Therefore, this Court is of the
considerable view that the Writ petition is not
maintainable when an alternative and effective
remedy is available to the petitioner. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate
forum for availing his remedy, and the concerned
authority shall also consider the aspect of limitation.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ
petition stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
AMANDEEP/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 11.07.2025
Transmission Date
