JUDGMENT : 1. On 26th July, 2018 this Court, upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the bank, arrived at a prima facie finding that an arguable case had been made out by the petitioner. However, as none appeared on behalf of the borrower and the learned Receiver, the matter was adjourned to avail response from the said respondents. Thereafter on 13th September, 2018 the said respondents appeared and the respondent no.5 placed on record a copy of the report filed before the learned Tribunal and supplied copies of the same to all. 2. Today, Mr. Rai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, in support of the arguments advanced on 26th July, 2018, has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) (1998) 9 SCC 685 (Action Group Res. In Envrn. & Education Development Authority & Ors. vs. Sakkya Bai and Others.); (ii) 1992 Supp(2) SCC 29 (East India Hotels Ltd. vs. Syndicate Bank); (iii) AIR 1952 Calcutta 656 (Assistant Collector of Customs vs. Surajmull Nagarmull & Anr.); (iv) AIR 1957 SC 529 (Shri Sohan Lal vs. Union of India & Anr.); (v) (2005) 6 SCC 321 (Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthi). 3. Drawing the attention of this Court to the report filed by the respondent no.5, he submits that in the notice dated 11th April, 2018, the said respondent did not incorporate the date on which he was going to visit the property, as detailed in the second paragraph of the said report (in short, the said property) for taking over possession in terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 21st April, 2018. There are also discrepancies in the track consignment report of the postal authorities and a perusal of the same would reveal the learned Receiver’s letter dated 11th April, 2018 was not delivered to the petitioner. 4. The respondent no.5, appearing in person, submits that inadvertently the date scheduled for visiting the said property was not incorporated in the notice dated 11th April, 2018. He, however, submits that there is no discrepancy in the postal receipts annexed to the report and that he has also sought for a report from the Post Master, R.N. Mukherjee Road Post Office by a letter dated 22nd September, 2018 as regards delivery of the letter dated 11th April, 2018 to the petitioner. Let the same be kept with the records. 5. Mr. Let the same be kept with the records. 5. Mr. Bagchi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4, submits that the petitioner is not a tenant under the respondent nos.3 and 4. The said property was being illegally occupied by the petitioner’s firm and that it was a trespasser. He denies that the said respondents have misled the learned Tribunal to pass the order dated 19th March, 2018 and submits that the suit preferred by the petitioner is itself not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. In support of the arguments advanced, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments: (i) 2009 (3) CHN 76 (Arun Kumar Sarswat vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.); (ii) AIR 2010 SC 3413 (United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.). 6. Ms. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that by the interim application filed before learned Tribunal, the bank inter alia prayed for appointment of a Special Officer and she hands over to this Court a copy of the said interim application and an application for addition of party filed before learned Tribunal by one Murzello Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. in O.A. No.609 of 2016. Let the copies of the same be kept with the records. 7. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits, upon instruction, that the company styled as “Jaggi Enterprise” was in physical possession of the property in question. In course of enquiry, it was ascertained that Jaggi Enterprise was running its business on the said property. Let the written instruction, as produced, be kept with the records. 8. Indisputably, the petitioner preferred a title suit being Title Suit No.175 of 2018 impleading the respondent nos.3 and 4 herein. In the same, an ex parte ad interim order was passed on 15th February, 2018 restraining the defendants from disturbing and dispossessing the plaintiff from the scheduled suit property without following the procedure established by law. In the said suit, the defendants being the respondent nos.3 and 4 entered appearance on 15th March, 2018 and prayed for time to file written statement. Such prayer was allowed and the interim order passed on 15th February, 2018 was extended. In the said suit, the defendants being the respondent nos.3 and 4 entered appearance on 15th March, 2018 and prayed for time to file written statement. Such prayer was allowed and the interim order passed on 15th February, 2018 was extended. As such, on and from 15th March, 2018, it was within the knowledge of the said respondents that a title suit has been filed by the petitioner and an interim order is subsisting in the same. Surprisingly, such fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal by the respondent nos.3 and 4 when the matter was heard on 19th March, 2018. 9. In the said order dated 19th March, 2018, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 was recorded which runs as follows : “Learned Counsel for the defendants submits that he would take necessary steps for recalling of the order dated 4th July, 2017 and also to file written statement urgently. Learned Counsel submits the above-named, Jaggi Enterprise, are trespasser and he has no objection if Receiver is appointed to take possession of the factory and custody be taken by the Receiver. Learned Counsel for the Defendants submit that above-named Jaggi Enterprise was a tenant and he has taken possession of the entire land and building over the factory”. 10. Had the fact that the competent Civil Forum had already passed an interim order protecting the petitioner’s possession over the said property been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal, the order would have been otherwise. From the records it is, thus, explicit that the order has been obtained by suppressing the material facts and upon misleading the learned Tribunal. Furthermore, from the report filed by the learned Receiver it does not appear that any prior notice was served upon the petitioner indicating that he would visit the said property for taking over possession on 21st April, 2018. The petitioner was kept in the dark and possession was abruptly taken over on 21st April, 2018 and as such the rules of natural justice have been violated and the petitioner has been illegally dispossessed. 11. It is well know that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. Even a slight distinction in fact or an additional fact may make a lot of difference in decision making process. 12. 11. It is well know that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. Even a slight distinction in fact or an additional fact may make a lot of difference in decision making process. 12. The rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion rather than a rule of compulsion. Mere existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the Writ Court. At least in four situations a Court of Writ would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite availability of an alternative remedy. One of such situations is when the action impugned in the writ petition is violative of the principles of natural justice and as such the judgment delivered in the case of Satyawati Tondon (Supra) does not stand in the way to entertain the present writ petition. It is also not a case that if the principles of natural justice were complied with, the result would have been the same and as such the judgment delivered in the case of Arun Kumar Saraswat (Supra) is also distinguishable on facts. 13. In the said conspectus, I am of the opinion that the status prevailing prior to the issuance of the order dated 19th March, 2018 needs to be restored. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19th March, 2018 passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the respondent no.5 is directed to visit the said property again on 10th October, 2018 at 10 am. On the said date and time the Chief Manager of the bank shall be present. Since the petitioner is suffering from cancer and as it would be extremely inconvenient for her to be present on the said date and time, as submitted by Mr. Rai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, this Court directs the husband of the petitioner, namely, Sri Basudeb Bhattacharya, to be present on the said date and time with all supportive documents towards his identity, viz., the voter identity card, pan card etc. 15. Rai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, this Court directs the husband of the petitioner, namely, Sri Basudeb Bhattacharya, to be present on the said date and time with all supportive documents towards his identity, viz., the voter identity card, pan card etc. 15. On the said date and time, the respondent no.5 shall open the steel locks which he had fastened on the entrance gate of the said property and shall enter the property and hand over physical possession of the same to the petitioner’s husband, namely, Basudeb Bhattacharya along with the articles, as mentioned in the inventory list annexed to the learned Receiver’s report. The minutes to that effect shall be drawn up by the respondent no.5 and shall be signed by the petitioner’s husband and the Chief Manager of the bank. 16. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall not alienate or create any third party right in the said property and shall also not sell the articles, as mentioned in the inventory list annexed to the learned Receiver’s report till the disposal of the original application filed by the bank before the learned Tribunal. The petitioner shall also file an application before the learned Tribunal for addition as a party respondent to the main application. 17. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.5 shall communicate this order to the respondent no.6 and the said respondent shall provide adequate police protection to the respondent no.5 on 10th October, 2018. 18. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 19. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.