Soumitra Pal, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata and the order passed by the Recovery Officer, Kolkata Debt Recovery Tribunal.
(2.) Mr. Prasanta Kr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner appearing along with Mr. Sunil Biswas particularly assailed the order dated 4.11.2003, passed by the Recovery Officer, being Annexure P-10 to the writ petition on merits. He has relied on a judgement Budhia Swain & Ors. vs. Gopinath Deb & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 2089 in support of the merits of the case.
(3.) Mr. Sabyfesachi Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 appearing alongwith Mr. Soumen Das raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the writ petitioner if aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer ought to have availed himself of the statutory alternative remedy by preferring appeal as laid down under section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 30 is set out hereunder : "30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. (2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under sections 25 to 28" (both inclusive).;