S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) IN both the writ petitions as common questions of law are involved and some of the common orders are under challenge, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) TATA Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as TISCO ') has preferred the first writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3510 of 2000(P) against the order dated 1st February; 2000, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Case No. O.A. 2 of 1997, whereby the learned Presiding Officer allowed the petition, preferred by the 3rd respondent -Bank of India, Chirkunda Branch, Dhanbad (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Bank ') under Sec.19(4) of the Recovery or Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act, 1993 '), ex -parte with cost and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 12% per annum until full and final realization of the claim amount. It was ordered to issue certificate under Sec.19(7) of the Act, 1993 and to forward the same to the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, for its execution under Sections 25 and 28 of the Act, 1993. This petitioner has also challenged the order dated 7th February, 2000, passed by the said Tribunal, whereby and whereunder, the certificate under Sub -section (7) of Sec.19 of the Act, 1993 has been drawn up against the petitioner and two others and forwarded to the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The other petitioner i.e. Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'BSIDC ') of 2nd writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 8842 of 2000(P) while challenged the common order dated 1st February, 2000, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in case No. O.A. 2 of 1997, has also challenged the orders dated 14th July and 29th August, 2000, both passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Recovery Proceeding No. 17 of 2000 for recovery of the certificate amount from the petitioner and two others and in favour of the respondent -Bank.
(3.) WHILE both the petitioners have challenged the orders mainly on the grounds that; they have been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice, in absence of necessary parties, the amount can not be recovered from the petitioners and the impugned orders are not based on any ground. The stand taken by the respondent -Bank is that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being statutory alternative remedy, available to the petitioners.;