Patna High Court
M/S Thakur Jee Mini Rice Mill Through Its ... vs Allahabad Bank And Anr on 15 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10238 of 2018
======================================================
1. M/s Thakur Jee Mini Rice Mill Through Its Proprietor Om Prakash Choubey
and Anr Son of Sri Siyaram Choubey, Village- Balapur, P.O.- Panjar, P.S.-
Kargahar, District- Rohtas.
2. Om Prakash Choubey, Son of Sri Siyaram Choubey, Resident of Village-
Balapur, P.O.- Panjar, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Allahabad Bank, Sasaram Branch through its Chief Manager, G.T.Road,
Sasaram, Rohtas
2. The Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, Sasaram Branch, G.T. Road, Sasaram,
Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh
: Mr.Kanhaiya Pandey
: Mr.Rakesh Narayan Singh
: Mr.Jai Shankar Pandey
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Nishi Nath Ojha
: Mr.S.K.Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-07-2025
1. The Writ petition is filed to direct the
respondents to take immediate steps for regularizing
and updating the loan account of the petitioner after
considering the offer made by the petitioner and
allow the petitioner to run his business smoothly.
Further, to provide help to the petitioner so that the
petitioner may run his business and repay the loan
amount to the bank.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10238 of 2018 dt.15-07-2025
2. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondent.
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 the legislations enacted by
Parliament and State Legislatures for
Patna High Court CWJC No.10238 of 2018 dt.15-07-2025
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10238 of 2018 dt.15-07-2025
5. In case of PHR Invent Educational
Society Vs UCO Bank & Ors. reported in 2024
Insc 297, the same principles have 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 petitioners. However, the petitioners are at
liberty to approach the appropriate forum for availing
their 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)
vinita/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.07.2025
Transmission Date
