A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if effective statutory remedies exist, requiring proper reasoning in interim orders issued by the court.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The respondents in W.P.(C)No.26067 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, being aggrieved by the interim order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The respondents herein approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P16 order dated 21.06.2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, (Special Court for the Trial of Criminal Cases against Sitting and Former MPs/MLAs of the State) in CMP No.2430 of 2025 in MC No.797 of 2022, contending that the said order is one issued without jurisdiction. In the writ petition, the respondents sought an interim relief to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P16 order dated 21.06.2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, pending disposal of the writ petition.

3. On 18.07.2025, when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order, which reads thus:

“The respondent Bank is directed to file a counter meeting the allegations in the writ petition. There will be an interim stay as prayed for, for a period of one month. Post on 18.08.2025.”

4. Challenging the above interim order, the appellants approached this Court by filing Writ Appeal No.1802 of 2025. By the judgment dated 11.08.2025, this Court disposed of that writ appeal setting aside the interim order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, on the sole ground that it is not supported by reasons. Paragraphs 8, 9 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:

“8. In LIC Housing Finance Ltd. v. Nagson and Company, 2025 KHC OnLine 7406, a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants-respondents, the Apex Court noticed that despite the said Court in a series of judgments – United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon,(2010) 8 SCC 110 being one among them – having cautioned the High Courts to exercise writ jurisdiction judicially while entertaining challenges to the actions by secured creditors under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to enforce their security interest in view of the scheme, purpose and object of the enactment, some of the High Courts took the other way and grant interim relief on the mere asking. The Apex Court still come across cases where, without just and sufficient reason being recorded, proceedings taken by secured creditors have been interdicted by the High Courts, with or without imposition of conditions, amounting to great disservice of institutional credibility. 9. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that, in the absence of reasons recorded in the interim order dated 18.07.2025, the said order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law.

In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of, by setting aside the interim order dated 18.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.26067 of 2025 on the sole ground that it is not supported by reasons. Such an order cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the learned Single Judge considering the interim relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.26067 of 2025 afresh, after considering the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides, including the question of maintainability. So as to enable the respondents-petitioners to bring up the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, sta