ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In these writ applications since common question of maintainability of the writ petitions have been raised, the same has been heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. In WPC No. 2031 of 2006, the petitioner Bihar State Financial Corporation has challenged the order dated 14.2.2005 passed by Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi whereby the objection filed by the petitioner against the order of attachment has been rejected and it was directed that the property attached shall be auction sold for the recovery of the dues of the respondent- Canara Bank.
3. In WPC No. 3183 of 2005, the petitioner Bihar, State Financial Corporation has challenged the order dated 5.4.2005 passed by Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi whereby the objection petition filed by the Corporation against the attachment order on the ground that the said property has been purchased by the private respondent after financing by the petitioner-Corporation has been rejected.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents mainly challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that statutory remedy of appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act 1993 (in short Debt Recovery Act).
5. Chapter V of the Debt Recovery Act lays down the procedure for recovery of debt after a certificate is issued under Sub-section (7) of Section 19 for recovery of the amount determined by the Recovery Tribunal. Section 30 of the Act lays down the provision of appeal which as under:
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 enquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer-in exercise of his power under Sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).]
6. Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as amended by Amendment Act 2000, according to which any person aggrieved by an order of Recovery Officer has a right to prefer appeal to the Tribunal Therefore, petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. It is well settled that when there is statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act then the High Court should be very slow in entertaining the writ application. In the case of Punjab National Bank. v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors. (2001)6 SCC-569, the Supreme Court observed:
In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of mortgaged property was appellable 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.
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 a 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 Article 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.
7. Having regard to the law settled by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, I am not inclined to entertain these writ petitions. Petitioners may avail statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned orders. These writ applications are, therefore, dismissed.
8. However, this Court observed that since petitioners were prosecuting their case before this Court, in the event any appeal is preferred Within two weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall decide all the points raised by the petitioners and pass a reasoned order on merit after condoning the delay, if any, in preferring the appeal.