V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) IN the Writ Petitions, respondents 2 and 3 are not represented despite service of notices. Hence, Sri B. Rudra Gowda, Learned Standing Counsel for the KSFC, is directed to take notice on their behalf. ( 2 ) IN the writ petitions, the Mandamus sought is to direct KSFC to pay the Customs and Central excise duties adjudicated with interest thereon payable by the first respondent in both the writ petitions. Since the KSFC has realised the amounts by selling the properties of first respondents, the directions are sought to KSFC to clear the dues. Similar was the prayer in the writ petition out of which the writ appeal has arisen. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the Union of India shall recover the amount under the provisions of the relevant statute. Against that order the writ appeal is filed. ( 3 ) FOR the recovery of the amounts adjudicated under the relevant statutes, the Union of India shall initiate recovery proceedings under the respective statutes. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the recovery of the amounts due. Rightly the Learned Single Judge held that the duties due shall not be recovered by seeking writ directions from this Court. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the 3rd respondent Bank in the Writ Appeal has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhu Das Parekh and Co. (2005) 5 SCC 694, wherein it is held that Doctrine of Priority of Precedence is available to the Government to recover private debts. However, the same is disputed by the learned Counsel for the KSFC placing reliance upon the decision reported in State of Karnataka v. Shreyas Papers Private limited AIR 2006 SC 865 wherein the relief sought for recovery of Sales Tax dues from the state Financial Corporation was not entertained. In that case, the Constitutional provisions referred to in Dena Bank's Case are neither referred to nor considered. Therefore, the ratio decedendi of the said decision cannot be applied to the instant cases and the reliance placed on the same is misplaced. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, no interference is warranted with the order of the Learned Single and the Writ Appeal is devoid of merit. Therefore, the ratio decedendi of the said decision cannot be applied to the instant cases and the reliance placed on the same is misplaced. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, no interference is warranted with the order of the Learned Single and the Writ Appeal is devoid of merit. The writ of mandamus sought by the Union of India for the recovery of statutory dues cannot be granted. It is open for the Union of India to recovery the dues as provided under the respective statutes or in accordance with law, not invoking the writ jurisdiction. ( 6 ) WRIT Appeal and Writ Petitions are dismissed with the above observations and liberty.