Writ jurisdiction must align with statutory procedures; courts should exercise restraint in commercial matters, particularly regarding SARFAESI Act enforcement.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The respondents in W.P.(C)No.24969 of 2025 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the order dated 08.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which is one filed by the respondent herein-petitioner, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P16 notice dated 21.06.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C.No.755 of 2023, in a proceedings initiated by the 1^st appellant Bank, invoking the provisions under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant installment facility to clear the arrears in the loan account and regularise the loan account on such terms as may be fixed by this Court.

2. On 08.07.2025, when W.P.(C)No.24969 of 2024 came up for admission, the learned counsel for Union Bank entered appearance, who took notice before admission. The interim order dated 08.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge reads thus:

“Notice before admission. The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents and seeks time to file a statement. To consider the prayers sought in the writ petition seeking instalment facility and to defer further coercive steps against the petitioner, as an interim measure, there will be a direction to the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) within one month. It is made clear that if the above payment is not made, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with law.”

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants-respondents would point out that even before issuing notice on admission, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 07.07.2025 in W.P.(C)24969 of 2025, which was placed on record on 07.07.2025 itself, producing therewith Annexures R1A to R1C documents. In the counter affidavit it was pointed out that the writ petitioner, who had availed the statutory remedy by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.No.614 of 2023, who had earlier invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking interference on the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Bank, cannot file another writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner would contend that the interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, warrants no interference in this writ appeal.

5. On the question of maintainability of a writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, against an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition, the Larger Bench in K. S. Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358] held that the word ‘order’ in Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act includes, apart from other orders, orders passed by the High Court in miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petitions provided the orders are to be in force pending the writ petition