Orissa High Court
Union Bank Of India vs Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8 August, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5003 of 2025
Union Bank of India, .... Petitioner
Asset Recovery Branch,
Bhubaneswar
Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra,
Senior Advocate and Mr.
Bhaskar Chandra Panda,
Advocate
-versus-
Chief Judicial Magistrate, .... Opp. Parties
(CJM), Ganjam & others
Ms. B. Puja, Advocate, for
opposite party Nos.2 to 4
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.08.2025 05. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate and Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Panda, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. B. Puja,
learned counsel appearing for the opposite party
Nos.2 to 4.
Page 1 of 4
This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner- Union Bank of India challenging the order
dated 24.12.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.259/2004
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam,
Berhampur in Misc. Case No.259/2024 in dismissing
the Misc. Case.
When we posed a question to the learned
counsel for the petitioner as to whether the writ
petition against the impugned order is maintainable
before this Court, learned counsel files a decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj
Finance Limited v. Ali Agency and others,
reported in AIR 2022 Orissa 68, wherein, it has
been held as follows:
“In case, if the District Magistrate fails to pass
the order in terms of what is provided under
Section 14 of the Act, 2002 or if the same is
not being implemented, the secured creditor
would have the remedy of invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.”
We are of the view that the nature of the order
under challenge in this petition does not come within
the categories of the cases, which have been
mentioned in the aforesaid paragraph.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed
reliance in the case of Harshad Govardhan
Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction
Page 2 of 4
Company Limited and others, reported in (2014)
6 SCC 1, wherein in paragraph no.29, it has been
held as follows:
“29. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of
the Sarfaesi Act provides that no act of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District
Magistrate or any officer authorised by the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate or the District
Magistrate done in pursuance of Section 14 shall
be called in question in any court or before any
authority. The Sarfaesi Act, therefore, attaches
finality to the decision of the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate or the District Magistrate and this
decision cannot be challenged before any court
or any authority. But this Court has repeatedly
held that statutory provisions attaching finality
to the decision of an authority excluding the
power of any other authority or court to
examine such a decision will not be a bar for the
High Court or this Court to exercise jurisdiction
vested by the Constitution because a statutory
provision cannot take away a power vested by
the Constitution. To quote, the observations of
this Court in Columbia Sportswear
Co. v. Director of Income Tax [(2012) 11 SCC
224] : (SCC p. 234, para 17)
“17. Considering the settled position
of law that the powers of this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution and the
powers of the High Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution could not
be affected by the provisions made in a
statute by the legislature making the
decision of the tribunal final or conclusive,
we hold that sub-section (1) of Section
245-S of the Act insofar as it makes the
advance ruling of the authority binding on
the applicant, in respect of the transaction
and on the Commissioner and Income Tax
Authorities subordinate to him, does notPage 3 of 4
bar the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution or the
jurisdiction of the High Court under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to
entertain a challenge to the advance
ruling of the authority.”
In our view, therefore, the decision of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District
Magistrate can be challenged before the High
Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution by any aggrieved party and if such
a challenge is made, the High Court can
examine the decision of the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the
case may be, in accordance with the settled
principles of law.”
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4
seeks for an adjournment to address the issue.
Put up this matter on 13.08.2025.
Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate shall take
out notice to the auction purchaser by impleading as
the opposite parties. On the next date, the learned
counsels for the parties shall address this Court on the
question of maintainability and the merits of the writ
petition.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
Signature Not Verified ( S.S. Mishra)
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Subhasis
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 12-Aug-2025 17:52:58
Page 4 of 4