Exhaustion of alternative remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as emphasized by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and supported by relevant Supreme Court judgments.

ORDER :

D.Krishnakumar, J.

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned possession notice dated 20.05.2022 u/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI ACT issued by the respondent and to quash the same as illegal.

Challenging the possession notice dated 20.05.2022, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has complied with the conditional interim order passed by this Court on 26.07.2022.

3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that though the petitioner has complied with the conditional interim order, she is having effective alternate appeal remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, is in-charge of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Hence, the petitioner has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for further orders.

4. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Bank, we are of the view that the petitioner has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for getting further orders.

5. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer the following decisions:-

(i) In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression "any person" used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.

43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.''

(ii) In Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra(2011) 2 SCC 782, the Apex Court has held as follows:-

''23. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2003) 3 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 762], Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [(2003) 6 SCC 675] and SBI v. Allied Chemical Laboratories [(2006) 9 SCC 252].)"

(iii) In ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Umakanta Mohapatra, (2019) 13 SC