ALTAMAS KABIR, J. - (1.) THESE appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge while disposing of the two writ applications filed by the Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (Tisco) and the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (BSIDC), being CWJC No. 3510 of 2000 (P) and CWJC No. 8842 of 2000 (P).
(2.) THE first of the two writ petitions was filed by TISCO against the order dated 1/2/2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in OA No. 2 of 1997, whereby the petition filed by the Bank of India, Chirkunda Branch, Dhanbad under Sec.19(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was allowed ex parte with costs and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 12 per cent per annum until full and final realization of the amounts. A direction was given to issue certificate under Sec.19(7) of the aforesaid Act and to forward the same to the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna, for execution under Secs. 25 and 28 of the said Act. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 7/2/2000 passed by the Tribunal whereunder the certificate under Sec.19(7) has been drawn up against the petitioner and forwarded to the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the BSIDC) filed a writ application challenging the common order -dated 1st February, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Case No. OA 2 of 1997 and the subsequent orders dated 14th and 28th August 2000 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in Recovery Proceedings No. 17 of 2000 for recovery of the certificate amount from the petitioner and in favour of the respondent -company.
(3.) WHILE both the petitioners challenged the common order dated Ist February, 2000 mainly on the ground that it had been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice, it was also urged that in the absence of necessary parties, the amounts could not be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the impugned orders are not based on any ground. On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondent -company was that this Court should not interfere with the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since a statutory alternative remedy was available to the petitioner.;