Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) ADMIT .
(2.) SHRI Bhag Chand Jain, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned orders dated 8th August, 2008 (Annexure -6) and 12th August, 2008 (Annexure -7) passed by the respondent No. 2 - Recovery Officer II, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 Recovery Officer are appealable under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act of 1993'), therefore, the petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal, and consequently this writ petition should be dismissed only on this ground alone.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that this Court has jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to see the legality and propriety of the impugned orders passed by the Recovery Officer, directly. He further contended that one another application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'SICA') was filed before the Tribunal by the petitioner No. 2, but, instead of staying the recovery in pursuance of certificate of recovery, the Tribunal stayed the proceedings of the appeal itself, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in filing the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Recovery Officer, before the Tribunal.;