High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs like mandamus is limited; parties must exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in financial matters governed by the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellants are the partners of a firm, by name 'AYRO Industries,' which is carrying on the business of making interlock bricks. The firm along with its partners availed various credit facilities from the 1^st respondent South Indian Bank, including a term loan and overdraft facility. The appellants-petitioners have approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.25118 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to renew the business overdraft loan account of the petitioners, without reducing the limit, in the interest of justice; and to stay all further recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 to P4 notices issued by the 3^rd respondent Authorised Officer under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and grant an opportunity to renew the overdraft loan account, in the interest of justice.

2. On 10.07.2025, when that writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge closed the same. Paragraph

2 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

"2. These prayers cannot be granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it is for the bank to consider the request of the borrower or through mutual agreement between them.

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the Bank in case they are seeking any concession/financial assistance."

3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.25118 of 2025, the appellants-petitioners are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 . This writ appeal is one filed along with C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2025, seeking an order to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal, which is condoned by a separate order of this date (16.09.2025).

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants- petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for South Indian Bank for the respondents.

5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted on the judgment dated 10.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.25118 of 2025.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners would contend that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is per se arbitrary and illegal, since the learned Single Judge rendered that judgment, without adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners.

7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for South Indian Bank for the respondents would contend that when the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are not maintainable, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with in closing the same, by the judgment dated 10.07.2025.

8. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of the judgment of this Court dated 16.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No.20896 of 2021, in respect of the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, relating to the loan account and overdraft facility availed by the appellants from the 1^st respondent Bank. The said writ petition is one filed by the 1^st appellant, who is the Managing Partner of the firm. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 16.03.2022, whereby the 1^st respondent Bank was directed to regularise the term loan account and renew the overdraft facility, subject to the conditions stipulated in paragraph 6 of that judgment. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by