Patna High Court
Sohan Rai vs The Indian Bank on 21 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15489 of 2023
======================================================
Sohan Rai Son of Tota Rai, Resident of Mohalla - Gosain Tola, P.O. and P.S.-
Patliputra, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Indian Bank through the General Manager, Zonal Office, Budh Marg,
Patna.
2. The General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Budh Marg, Patna.
3. The Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Budh Marg,
Patna.
4. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Patna Main Branch, Budh Marg,
Patna.
5. The Manager, Indian Bank, Patliputra Colony Branch, Patliputra, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, District - Patna.
7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, District - Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Giri, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raghwendra Kumar ( SC-22 )
For Res/Bank Dr. BK Jha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-07-2026
1. The Writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
i. To issue a writ of certiorari for
quashing of demand Notice issued by
Respondent no. 4 through Letter No.
ZO Patna: SARFAESI 2021-22/260
dated 29.01.2022 to the petitioner
whereby petitioner has been directed
to deposit Rs. 18,38,111/- in his Loan
Account No.20447025643 with Indian
Bank, Patliputra Branch, Patna
(Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) for a CC
Patna High Court CWJC No.15489 of 2023 dt.21-07-2026
2/5
Loan of Rs.16,00,000/- as on
29.01.2022
, as contained in Annexure-
P/1.
ii. To further issue a Writ of
certiorari for quashing of memo no.
3726 dated 25.08.2023 issued by
Respondent No.7 whereby and
whereunder the possession of the
dwelling house of the petitioner
situated in Mouza Gosain Tola, P.S-
Digha, Patna under PS No.2, Khatha
No. 104, Tauzi No. 5085, Plot No. 671,
measuring an area of 1 Katha and 5
dhur in the name of late Ramrajia Devi
(mother of the petitioner) was handed
over to the Indian Bank, Patliputra
Branch, Patliputra, as contained in
Annexure- P/4.
iii. To further issue a writ of
mandamus commanding the
respondents not to charge any penal
interest on the loan amount taken by
the petitioner after declaration of loan
as NPA w.e.f. 12.06.2021.
iv. To further issue a writ of
mandamus commanding the
respondent not to put the dwelling
house of the petitioner taken in
possession by them 31.08.2023 by
Patna High Court CWJC No.15489 of 2023 dt.21-07-2026
3/5
memo no. 3726 dated 25.08.2023
issued by respondent no.7 during
pendency of the present writ
application.
v. To further issue a writ
mandamus commanding the
respondent Bank to allow extended
time frame for repayment of the loan
by the petitioner in a smaller
installment.
vi. For any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner is entitled for.
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,
Patna High Court CWJC No.15489 of 2023 dt.21-07-2026
4/5cess, 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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.15489 of 2023 dt.21-07-2026
5/5they 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.
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 petitioner. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate
forum for availing the 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)
Manish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 22.07.2026 Transmission Date
