Orissa High Court
Prahallad Pradhan vs Authorized Officer on 1 August, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1033 of 2025
Prahallad Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Mr. Achyutananda Pattanaik,
Advocate
-versus-
Authorized Officer,
Punjab National Bank,
Circle Sastra Centre,
Circle Office,
Bhubaneswar and others ..... Opp. Parties
Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal,
Advocate for Bank
Mr. Ashis Ku. Mishra, Advocate
for opp. party no.3
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 01.08.2025
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
The petitioner, Prahallad Pradhan has filed this writ
petition challenging the auction sale notice dated
Signature Not Verified
23.12.2024 issued by the opp. party no.1 under
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Annexure-3 with a prayer not to take any coercive action
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 04-Aug-2025 10:45:30
against the petitioner and with a direction to the opp.
party no.1 to return the original RoRs of the mortgaged
Page 1 of 5
properties of the petitioner.
Heard.
In case of United Bank of India -Vrs.-
Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 110, in the case of Balkrishna
Rama Tarle (dead through legal representatives)
and another -Vrs.- Phoenix Arc Private Limited and
others reported in (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases
662 so also in the case of CELIR LLP -Vrs.- Bafna
Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others
reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1, it has
been held that the High Court should not entertain the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
when alternative remedy is available under section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act.
In the case of Satyawati Tondon (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“42. There is another reason why the impugned
order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had
any tangible grievance against the notice issued
under section 13(4) or action taken under
section 14, then she could have availed remedy
by filing an application under section 17(1). The
expression “any person” used in section 17(1) is
of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only
the borrower but also the guarantor or any other
person who may be affected by the action taken
under section 13(4) or section 14. Both, the
Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are
empowered to pass interim orders under
sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide
Page 2 of 5
the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is
thus evident that the remedies available to an
aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are
both expeditious and effective.
43. Unfortunately, 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. In our view, 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.”
In the case of Balkrishna Rama Tarle (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“18. Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM
under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are
ministerial steps and section 14 does not involve
any adjudicatory process qua points raised by
the borrowers against the secured creditorPage 3 of 5
taking possession of the secured assets. In that
view of the matter once all the requirements
under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are
complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor,
it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist
the secured creditor in obtaining the possession
as well as the documents related to the secured
assets even with the help of any officer
subordinate to him and/or with the help of an
advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner.
At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to
adjudicate the dispute between the borrower
and the secured creditor and/or between any
other third party and the secured creditor with
respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved
party to be relegated to raise objections in the
proceedings under section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act, before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal.”
In the case of Bafna Motors (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as follows:
“110.3. In accordance with the unamended
Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of
the borrower to redeem the secured asset was
available till the sale or transfer of such secured
asset. In other words, the borrower’s right of
redemption did not stand terminated on the date
of the auction-sale of the secured asset itself
and remained alive till the transfer was
completed in favour of the auction-purchaser, by
registration of the sale certificate and delivery of
possession of the secured asset. However, the
amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the
SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of the
borrower to redeem the secured asset stands
Page 4 of 5
extinguished thereunder on the very date of
publication of the notice for public auction under
Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules. In effect, the right
of redemption available to the borrower under
the present statutory regime is drastically
curtailed and would be available only till the date
of publication of the notice under Rule 9(1) of
the 2002 Rules and not till the completion of the
sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of
the auction-purchaser.”
After hearing learned counsel for the respective
parties and taking into account the ratio laid down in the
aforesaid cases and since the alternative remedy is
available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned
order, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate
remedy available under the law.
Accordingly, the writ petition stand dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S. S. Mishra)
Judge
Sipun
Page 5 of 5