Vikash Kumar vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1492 of 2026
======================================================
Vikash Kumar Son of Madan Giri, resident of Village-Sohai, P.O.-Rahimpur
Jadish, P.S.-Vaishali, District-Vaishali (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Vaishali.
2. The Additional Collector, Vaishali.
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner (D.D.C.), Vaishali.
4. The Incharge Officer, District Nilam Patra Prashakha, Vaishali.
5. The Officer in Charge, Police Station Vaishali, District-Vaishali.
6. The Block Development Officer, Block Vaishali, District-Vaishali.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, Hajipur.
8. The District Nilam (Auction) Patra Officer (SARFAESI), Vaishali.
9. The Executive Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali.
10. The General Manager, Hinduja Housing Finance Limited, 27A, Developed
Industrial Estate, P.S.-Guindy, Chennai, PIN Code-600032.
11. The Branch Manager, Hinduja Housing Finance Limited, 2nd Floor, B-8,
S.K. Puri, Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Boring Road, P.S.-S.K. Puri Patna, Bihar-
800001.
12. The Authorized Officer of Hinduja Housing Finance Limited having its
Branch Office, B-8, 2nd Floor, Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Boring Road, P.S.-Puri
Patna, Bihar-800001.
13. The Branch Manager, Hinduja Ley Land Finance, Yaman Enclave, Ist Floor,
Sai Kripa Hospital, Near Nagarmal Mell, Bailey Road, Rukanpura, P.S.-
Rajiv Nagar, Bihar, PIN code-800001.
14. The Regional Legal Manager/The Regional Manager, Hinduja Housing
Finance Limited, 2nd Floor, B-8, S.K. Puri, Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Boring
Road, P.S. S.K. Puri, District-Patna, Bihar-800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Shweta Anand, AC to GP-13
For the HHFL : Mr. Dhananjay Kashyap, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-08-2026

Patna High Court CWJC No.1492 of 2026 dt.29-08-2026
2/5
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application
reads as follows:-
“(I) For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus directing/ commanding respondents
authority specially the respondent no. 10 to 14 not
to proceed under the SARFAESI Act against the
petitioner till the adjudication of his representation
pending before for redressal of his grievances
specially when he was paying the installment of
loan amount regularly till September 2025 of Rs.
13,04,397/- out of total loan amount of Rs.
24,50,000/- and is ready to settle the loan account.
(II) For further directing the respondent
authority specially the respondent no. 11 to provide
the sanction letter as well as the details of
calculation chart (statement of payment of
installment of loan amount) to the petitioner from
beginning upto till date for which the petitioner is
continuously demanding from the concern
respondent through his representation for settle the
loan account.
(III) For issuance writ in the nature of
certiorari for setting aside the proceedings
initiated by the concern respondents against the
petitioner as the same is not accordance with law
an procedure and has been started without giving
proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on
the issue that no cause of action has arisen in view
of regular payment of installment by the petitioner.
(IV) For setting aside the demand notice dated
13.12.2025 issued to the petitioner by the concern
respondents under section 13(2) of SARFAESI ACT
2002 ignoring the fact that representation under
13(3) of the Act is pending and the petitioner is
ready to pay the due loan amount/the settlement
amount).
(V) For directing the concern respondents to
dispose of the representation/ objection or to
consider such representation of the petitioner (as
contained in Annexure -P/5) in light of section 13
(2) of the SARFAESI ACT.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1492 of 2026 dt.29-08-2026
3/5
(VI) For staying and effect of Notice dated
13.12.2025 issued to the petitioner by the
concerned respondent U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI
ACT or till the decision of present writ application.
(VII) For a direction to the respondents to take
steps for fixation of installment of due loan amount
/ settlement amount in view of the fact that the
petitioner is ready to pay the entire due admissible
loan amount / is ready to settle the due loan
amount.
(VIII) For grant of any other relief or reliefs in
view of the fact and circumstances of the present as
well as on the fact that the petitioner is ready to
deposit the entire admissible due loan amount
within a reasonable period of time.”
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent-
Bank submits that the petitioner has directly approached this
Court without availing the alternative remedy available to him.
He further draws the attention of this Court towards the several
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that if an effective remedy is available
to the aggrieved persons, the High Court should not ordinarily
entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
4. In view of the submission, this Court reiterates the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, reported in (2010)
8 SCC, in which it is 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.1492 of 2026 dt.29-08-2026
4/5
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 are 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 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.”
5. In the case of Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors
(Mumbai)(P) Ltd. , reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble
Apex Court held as follows:-
“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.”
6. In the case of PHR Invent Educational Society V
UCO Bank & Ors reported in 2024 Insc 297 , the same
principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. 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 petitioner. However, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1492 of 2026 dt.29-08-2026
5/5
petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for
availing the remedy, and the concerned authority shall also
consider the aspect of limitation.
8. However, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
submits that if the petitioner file his representation seeking
relevant documents before the Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd.,
the relevant documents shall be supplied to the petitioner within
a period of 15 days from the date of submission of the
application by the petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ petition
stands disposed of.

(Girijish Kumar, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31.08.2026
Transmission Date NA