JUDGMENT
Soumitra Pal, J.
1. In the instant writ application the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata and the order passed by the Recovery Officer, Kolkata Debt Recovery Tribunal.
2. Mr. Prasanta Kr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner appearing along with Mr. Sunil Biswas particularly assailed the order dated 4.11.2003, passed by the Recovery Officer, being Annexure P-10 to the writ petition on merits. He has relied on a judgment Budhia Swain and Ors. v. Gopinath Deb and Ors., in support of the merits of the case.
3. Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 appearing alongwith Mr. Soumen Das raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the writ petitioner if aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer ought to have availed himself of the statutory alternative remedy by preferring appeal as laid down under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 30 is set out hereunder :
“30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
(2) On receipt of an appeal under Sub-section(1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under Sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).
4. Mr. Chowdhury further submitted that the issue stands settled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan and Ors., . Mr. Chowdhury particularly relied on paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgment in support of his contention. The said paragraphs are set out hereinunder:
“5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of mortgaged property was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”). The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum.
6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles. 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said Constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.”
5. Mr. Chowdhury submitted that in view of the provisions of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court, the writ petitioner instead of moving the writ petition should have preferred an appeal from the order passed by the Recovery Officer and the writ petition should be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court the position of law is settled. The order passed by the Recovery Officer is an appealable order. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the order of Recovery Officer, should have availed himself of the alternative remedy under the Act. Not having done so the petitioner has moved the writ petition. In view of the provisions of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court the writ petition is not maintainable. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. Urgent Xerox certified copy of the judgment be supplied to the appearing parties, if applied for, on priority basis.