Patna High Court
Ajit Kumar vs The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Through Its ... on 25 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3255 of 2018
======================================================
Ajit Kumar Son of Late Shiv Raj Prasad, Resident of Krishna Toli,
Brahmpura, P.S.- Brahmpura, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank through Its Chairman, Sharma Complex,
Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur
2. The Regional Manager- Cum-Authorized Officer, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank,
Regional Office, Muzaffarpur
3. The Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Budh Nagra Kanhauli,
Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur.
4. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, East Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Kant Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Anuradha Singh- SC-21
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-06-2025
1. The writ petition has been filed to quash
the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Learned
District Magistrate-cum-District Collector,
Muzaffarpur, in Case No. 03/SARFAESI/2017-18 under
Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act'),
Patna High Court CWJC No.3255 of 2018 dt.25-06-2025
2/5
whereby a direction was issued to hand over physical
possession of the secured asset to the Bank.
2. It is noticed that the matter pertains to
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act.
There is an effective alternative remedy available for
the petitioner to challenge it before the DRT, but
without availing the alternative remedy, the present
writ petition is filed.
3. In PHR Invent Educational Society v.
UCO Bank and Others, (Civil Appeal No. 4845 of
2024), their Lordships of the Apex Court have held as
follows:
"Ordinarily the High Court would not
entertain a petition u/Art. 226 if an effective remedy
is available to the aggrieved person..."
Likewise, in the matter of Celir LLP v.
Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1, their Lordships of the
Apex Court have 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3255 of 2018 dt.25-06-2025
3/5
aggrieved person under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act ..."
In the case of United Bank of India v.
Satyawati Tondon and Ors. reported in (2010) 8
SCC 110 their Lordships of the Apex Court have held
as follows:-
"43. ... 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 ..."
It is further held:-
"... 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid
judgments, has categorically held that the High
Courts cannot entertain a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution when an effective alternative
remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
5. It is the specific contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.3255 of 2018 dt.25-06-2025
4/5
petition has been filed challenging the order dated
08.08.2017
passed by the District Magistrate-cum-
District Collector, Muzaffarpur, in Case No.
03/SARFAESI/2017-18, whereby the District
Magistrate has sought to take possession of the
property and hand it over to the Bank.
6. This Court, vide order dated 03.04.2018,
had initially kept in abeyance the order dated
08.08.2017 passed by the District Magistrate,
Muzaffarpur (Annexure-5). A perusal of the said order
clearly indicates that the operation of the order
dated 08.08.2017 was stayed until the final disposal
of the writ petition.
7. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to
settle the matter with the Bank. In view thereof, the
petitioner is directed to approach the concerned
Bank authorities along with all relevant documents. If
any settlement is arrived at between the parties, it is
for the Bank to see that a compromise has been
recorded and in the event no compromise is reached,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3255 of 2018 dt.25-06-2025
the Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance
with law.
8. With the abovesaid observation, the writ
petition shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
vinita/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.06.2025
Transmission Date
