The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the need for exhaustion of statutory remedies.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been filed for seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the e-auction notice dated 5.8.2024 along with any consequential proceedings conducted in furtherance of the notice; writ of mandamus, directing the respondent-Bank to refund the money received from any of the successful auction bidder/purchaser; to release the outstanding dues from the inventory/stock videographed, photographed andverified at the time of the seizure of the mortgaged property; directing the respondent Bank to return high-value inventory/ stock, which was videographed/photographed at the time of sealing of the mortgaged premises by the Bank; to revive the One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal as per the terms and conditions proposed in the year 2022; produce all the relevant records; and provide an opportunity to clear all the outstanding dues.

2. As per the petitioner, the petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm. The property measuring 0-05-99 hectares, located at Mohal Nari, Sub Tehsil Bharwain, District Una, H.P., is owned by petitioner No. 2 (even though only one petitioner has filed the petition). A building named M/s Satyam Prasad Bhandar is constructed on the land and is utilised by the pilgrims visiting Mata Chintpurni Temple as a rest house. The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.45.00 lacs (Rs.35.00 lacs term loan and Rs.10.00 lacs CC Limit) from Kangra Cooperative Bank, Bharwain. This loan was taken over by Vijaya Bank (now Bank of Baroda) in 2015 as per the petitioner's request. The loan amount was enhanced to Rs.2,55,00,000/- for the construction of a shop, hotel/building. The borrower deposited Rs.1,80,00,000/- in the form of various instalments. He defaulted in the payment of a few instalments, and the building was sealed on 12.9.2019 with the assistance of the Tehsildar, Police and Up-Pradhan. The Bank asked the borrower and guarantor to deposit Rs.10.00 lacs on 11.9.2019, which amount was deposited. The Bank obtained writing from the petitioner and guarantor to deposit the remaining amount within one month and promised not to seal the building for one month. However, the Bank officials sealed the building on 12.9.2019. The borrower and guarantor approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, with a prayer to give notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFEASI Act) declaring the action taken by the Bank to be void. He also approached this Court by filing a Civil Miscellaneous Petition Main (Objection) bearing CMPMO No. 326 of 2020. The Court directed the Bank not to finalise the process of auction. The Bank used to advertise the auction notice in the newspaper, mentioning the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal; however, these proceedings were not mentioned in the notice dated 22.6.2024 and 26.7.2024. The reserve price mentioned in the auction notice was based on the valuation report obtained more than a year before the auction. The approved valuer valued the property at more than Rs.3.00 crores in 2018. As per the valuation got done by the Bank, the property was valued at Rs.4,25,00,000/-. The market value of the property is more than Rs.6.00 crores approximately. The value of the items lying inside the building worth cores of rupees was not mentioned in the valuation. The borrower approached the Bank for One Time Settlement (OTS) on 23.5.2022. An amount of Rs.1,80,00,000/- was settled under the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS). The petitioner remained present in the office of the General Manager with the Demand Draft of Rs.5.00 lacs. He had deposited Rs. 13.00 lacs in the Parking Account/Sundry Account of the Bank. The Bank did not issue any compromise letter/sanction letter to the petitioner despite repeated reminders. The Bank had also added another loan of the petitioner of Rs. 14.00 lacs, which was a regular account. The bank issued a letter to the petitioner