Abdul Quddhose, J.

1. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been issuing directions that, when there is an alternative statutory remedy available to the borrower under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the 'SARFAESI Act'), the High Courts should not entertain writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The exceptions to this normal rule have also been well defined, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603, and it reads as under:-

15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co.