Patna High Court
Nandlal Sah vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 2 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10286 of 2018
======================================================
Nandlal Sah S/o Late Bachan Sah R/o Village P.S.- Turkaulia, District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, East Champaran
2. The Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Shanker Saraiya,
District- East Champaran
3. The Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office,
Kalambagh Chowk, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar
4. Mr. Sarda Ram, Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Shanker Saraiya Branch
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh -GP 26
For the Bank : M/s Prabhakar Jha
Mukund Mohan Jha, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-07-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following reliefs:
"1. ..... for quashing the letters dated
15.09.2016
and 01.03.2018 whereby and
where under the Respondents have asked
the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,92,472/-
1A. …. for direction upon the
Respondents to issue the no dues
certificate to the petitioner as the petitioner
had already paid the loan amount on the
oral instruction of the Branch Manager and
the Bank Authorities are not issuing the no
dues certificate to the petitioner. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.10286 of 2018 dt.02-07-2025
2/4
petitioner had paid Rs. 6,32,000/- on the
oral instruction of the Branch Manager but
the no dues certificate was issued to him.
1/B. …… for direction upon the
Respondents not to take any coercive steps
against the petitioner till disposal of the
present writ application.
1/C. ….. for issuance of any other
appropriate writ / order / direction to which
he is found entitled to.”
2. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.10286 of 2018 dt.02-07-2025
3/4institutions. 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 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.10286 of 2018 dt.02-07-2025
4/4
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.
8. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 02.07.2025 Transmission Date