Patna High Court
Renu Devi And Anr vs The General Manager, State Bank Of India … on 19 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17612 of 2017
======================================================
1. Renu Devi wife of Anil Prasad
2. Anil Prasad son of Late Basudeo Prasad Both residents of village Shankar
Takiya, Near Punjabi Dharamshala, P.S. Civil Lines, District Gaya.
... ... petitioners/s
Versus
1. The General Manager, State Bank Of India and Anr
2. The Branch Manager-cum-Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Gandhi
Maidan Branch, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the petitioners/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Satya Prakashtripathy
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-06-2025
1. The Writ petition is filed to set aside Letter
No. 6553, dated 26.10.2013, issued by the
respondent No. 2, whereby information was given
regarding the auction sale notice published in the
daily news paper Hindustan dated 12.08.2013, and
the auction was held on 12.09.2013 for a
consideration of Rs. 10.10 Lakh and the deposition of
the remaining amount of Rs. 4,88,206/- in the
petitioners’ account, which was received by the
petitioners through post on 20.11.2013. The further
Patna High Court CWJC No.17612 of 2017 dt.19-06-2025
2/4
relief is to quash the entire proceedings initiated
under the SARFAESI Act against the petitioners.
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
recovery of such dues are a code
unto themselves inasmuch as they
Patna High Court CWJC No.17612 of 2017 dt.19-06-2025
3/4not 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
Insc 297, the same principles have been reiterated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17612 of 2017 dt.19-06-2025
4/4
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)
AMANDEEP/-
AFR/NAFR N/A CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 20.06.2025. Transmission Date