Point of Law:
Writ Jurisdiction is an extraordinary jurisdiction and as has been observed by the Supreme Court in Satyawati Tandon (supra), such extraordinary jurisdiction ought not to be exercised in matters where adequate statutory remedy is available.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 1.11.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Misc. Case no.2620 of 2019 (Bank of Baroda vs. M/s. Shakuntala Devi), and also praying for a direction to the respondents to remove the seal from the lock of the petitioner no.3 on the house and to restore possession of the secured asset to the petitioners and to refrain from taking coercive measures against the petitioners.

2. I have heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava for the Bank.

3. Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as he has relied upon several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court and also of various High Courts, to say that against an action taken under Section 14 by the District Magistrate or his authorized officer, the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is available to the aggrieved person.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 (2) SCC 782 and Paras 19 and 20 thereof. It has been submitted on the basis of the said judgment that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitute an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) of the Act and, therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of Section 17(1) of the Act and the efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person aggrieved by an action under Section 13(4) of the Act is to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It has been submitted that in the judgment in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev (supra), the Supreme Court held that Section 14 action is a continuation of action taken under Section 13 of the Act and, therefore, they should be considered as one action.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others 2010 (8) SCC 110, to state that in the judgment rendered in Satyawati Tandon, the Supreme Court considered more specifically action taken under Section 14 of the Act and he has referred Para 17 of the judgment, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court that if respondent no.1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14 of the Act, then she should have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the Act. The expression "any person" used in Section 17(1)if 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 of the Act. In Satyawati Tandon (supra), the Supreme Court observed that an action taken under Section 14 of the Act would be challenged in appeal before the Tribunal and that the High Court had overlooked the settled position in law that it will not ordinarily entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if any effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this Rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of the public dues. The Supreme Court had observed that the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and the 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the aforesaid judgments were rendered by the Supreme Court before the proviso t