1. The oft quoted Rule which, over the years has come to occupy an exulted position, of not entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India when an alternative efficacious remedy is available, is a Rule of self restraint and circumspection rather than a rule of law even though generally there are no limits on the jurisdiction of this Court while it acts under writ jurisdiction.

2. When an alternative efficacious remedy is shown, under which the processes or orders impugned can be tested, it is generally a rule of prudence and discipline that the parties are relegated to such remedies, rather than being continued under the umbra of the provisions of Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The normal exception to this rule is when manifest injustice, resulting from grave and material legal infirmity, patent on the face and plainly discernible, without requiring deep probe into the contextual facts, are established. However, Courts have always been cautious that the extraordinary power, vested constitutionally on superior Courts, is not used to set right all errors but only when such errors cause substantial injustice or flagrant violation of law or irremediable miscarriage; and solely to prevent perpetration of the legal fraud and to promote good faith and equity.

4. I have begun this judgment with this prelude because the petitioners fervently pray that, notwithstanding the alternative remedy available under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity), this original petition be construed as being maintainable and that this Court enter into an adjudication of the merits of the contents of the impugned orders. The submissions made before me on behalf of the petitioners are, in its essence, that the impugned orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kerala (the 'DRT' for brevity), namely Exhibits P26 and P27, are in flagrant violation of law and not merely being vitiated by errors of opinion and judgment and therefore, that it is non est in the eyes of law, thus empowering this Court to consider it on its merits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Before I endevour into an assessment of the submissions of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to remind myself the limits of jurisdiction of this Court, while acting under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, when an alternative efficacious remedy is demonstrated and established.

6. In the judgment in Union of India v. T.R.Varma (AIR 1957 SC 882), His Lordship Justice Venkatarama Ayyar speaking for the Court said as under :

“It is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ; but as observed by this Court in Rashid Ahmed V. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163, ' the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs. 'Vide also K.S.Rashid and sons V. The Income-tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207. And where such remedy exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Art. 226, unless there are good grounds therefor.”

7. These principles were subsequently restated with approval by Chief Justice S.R.Das in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86) which, for its sheer mastery, deserves to be read in full and is therefore extracted as under:

“.......It must be borne in mind that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It is well established that, provided the requisite grounds exist, certior