ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Jolly N. Shah on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. V.N.Sevak on behalf of the respondent no.1.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following prayers:-

“(a) Be pleased to admit this petition.

(b) Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the interest of justice.

(c) Be pleased to give direction to the respondent bank to unseal said properties and to handover physical possession of the same even in conditional favour/ in favour of the applicant – tenant – Higher Secondary School in the interest of natural justice and be pleased to sufficiently heard it, in the interest of justice, as the applicant Higher Secondary School is willingly ready to pay the respondent bank an income of the fees collection from the students of the school after deducting salaries of the staff and expenses of the school and for that, whichever legal procedure has to follow, the applicant school is willingly ready to follow the same.

(d) Your Lordship may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner claims to be a tenant of the property which, according to the petitioner, it had taken on rent from the the borrower and whereas, according to the petitioner, the petitioner had not been given adequate opportunity to make out a case before the District Magistrate while the District Magistrate had exercised powers under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Securitisation Act’ for short).

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4)(a) of the Securitisation Act and whereas, not having availed the said remedy, the petitioner would be required to justify as to why the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained even inspite of an alternative remedy which, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be efficacious.

4.1. The law in this regard having been laid down in line of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the latest being in case of M/s. South Indian Bank Limited & Ors. vs. V Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 435 whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the position that a writ petition would be entertainable even if there is an alternative remedy, only in certain circumstances, more particularly when the action which is under challenge is for enforcement of fundamental right of the applicant in question or when the action in question is in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order in question is wholly without jurisdiction or vires of an Act is challenged.

4.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner would not be able to contend that the action on the part of the respondents, more particularly, when the petitioner has a remedy, would be falling under any of the contingencies as observed herein above.

4.3. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner having an alternative remedy, this Court would not be inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting any relief as claimed by the petitioner. Furthermore, this Court at this stage would seek to rely upon observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s. South Indian Bank Limited & Ors. (supra) whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law laid down in earlier judgments with regard to interference in matters relating to the Securitisation Act. Paragraph nos. 17 and 18 being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced herein below for benefit:-

“17. We shall reiterate the position of law regarding the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act by quoting a few of the earlie