Exhaustion of statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions is crucial, as emphasized by the court in this judgment.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents.

2. The petitioner No. 1 Sri Kamala Kanta Singha is a retired Army personnel aged about 72 years and the petitioner No. 2 Smti. Kanchan Bala Singha is the daughter of the petitioner No. 1. Both the petitioners were served with a notice dated 01.02.2019 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) in respect of ODUPM Account No. 0037210035510 for an amount of Rs.24,76,035.12/-. In the notice, the description of the immovable properties over which the respondent United Bank of India may exercise all or any of their rights under Section 13(4) had also been provided. Consequent thereof, a notice of intended sale under Rule 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 (for short, the Rules of 2002) were also served on the petitioners. Further, with reference to the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 01.02.2019, the respondent United Bank of India issued a notice dated 30.10.2019 to the mortgagers for vacating and handing over of the properties in respect of ODUPM Account No. 0037210035510.

3. In the circumstance, the present writ petition is instituted for setting aside the entire proceeding against the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules of 2002.

4. From the three notices referred above, it is discernible that the proceeding against the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act has reached the stage as provided under Section 13(4) of the Act.

5. In view of the above, the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and, therefore, no interference is called for in this petition. We are fortified in our view by the binding decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another vs. Mathew K.C. AIR 2018 SC 676, wherein it was observed as under:

“9. The statement of objects and reasons of the SARFAESI Act states that the banking and financial sector in the country was felt not to have a level playing field in comparison to other participants in the financial markets in the world. The financial institutions in India did not have the power to take possession of securities and sell them. The existing legal framework relating to commercial transactions had not kept pace with changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms resulting in tardy recovery of defaulting loans and mounting non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions. The Narasimhan Committee I and II as also the Andhyarujina Committee constituted by the Central Government Act had suggested enactment of new legislation for securitisation and empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of securities and sell them without court intervention which would enable them to realise long-term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Act’) with passage of time, had become synonymous with those before regular courts affecting expeditious adjudication. All these aspects have not been kept in mind and considered before passing the impugned order.

10. Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it was held in Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 569 : AIR 2001 SC 3208, that:

“6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed eit