Point of Law: Though existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances.

ORDER :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Hyderabad, in S.A.No.190 of 2016 and consequently to allow the said securitization application of the petitioners.

2. Petitioners are mother and son respectively. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Rajeshwar Reddy, whereas petitioner No.2 is the son of late Rajeshwar Reddy.

3. From the materials on record, it appears that State Bank of India, Nizamabad Main Branch, Nizamabad, had sanctioned loan of Rs.25,92,500-00 to the petitioners against security provided by the petitioners by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule property. It further appears that petitioners defaulted in repayment of loan on account of various reasons for which petitioners requested respondent State Bank of India for settlement of the liabilities under one time settlement (OTS) scheme. During the course of negotiations respondent Bank had issued notice to the petitioners for regularization of the loan account, pursuant to which petitioners had paid certain amounts on five different occasions towards regularization of the loan account. Notwithstanding the same, respondent State Bank of India had quantified the total dues of the petitioners at Rs.44,75,000-00. Without following the due procedure, respondent State Bank of India forcibly took physical possession of the schedule property on 19.4.2016 whereafter e-auction sale notice was published in the newspapers on 04.5.2016 for auction sale of the schedule property.

4. Petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the e-auction sale notice dated 04.5.2016 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad (briefly, ‘the Tribunal’ hereinafter) by filing a securitisation application under Section 17 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘SARFAESI Act’), which was registered as S.A.No.190 of 2016. It appears that petitioners had filed an interlocutory application before the Tribunal for stay of the auction sale proceedings. Tribunal, by order dated 09.6.2016, took the view that there was no merit in the application for stay. Accordingly respondent State Bank of India was granted liberty to go ahead with the sale, but it was clarified that the sale would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in S.A.No.190 of 2016.

5. Following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 09.6.2016, respondent State Bank of India obtained fresh valuation of the schedule property on 23.01.2017 and issued notice dated 10.5.2017 under Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (briefly, the ‘SARFAESI Rules’ hereinafter) fixing auction sale on 12.6.2017. It is stated that in the auction sale, respondent No.2 was the highest bidder for Rs.48,00,000-00, which bid was accepted; accordingly sale certificate was issued on 22.6.2017.

6. At that stage, petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court assailing the sale e-auction, which was registered as Writ Petition No.35574 of 2017. By the order dated 06.11.2017, this Court observed that S.A.No.190 of 2016 was pending before the Tribunal for consideration, with the Tribunal permitting the respondent State Bank of India to go ahead with the auction sale but making the same subject to final outcome of the proceedings. In such circumstances, this Court took the view that petitioners should prosecute the pending S.A.No.190 of 2016 before the Tribunal and that no case was made out for interference at that stage. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

7. Thereafter petitioners proceeded with the securitisation application, which was heard and decided by the Tribunal, vide, the impugned order dated 09.01.2019. As per the impugned order, Tribunal dismissed the securitisation application filed by the petitioners.

8. Contending tha