The High Court will not entertain petitions under Art.226 if an efficacious alternative remedy is available.

1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.7.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal - 2, (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") Ahmedabad in Securitisation Application No. 200 of 2020. By the said order interim relief was refused by the DRT.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that interim relief is refused without recording any reason. It is contended that action taken under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFESI Act") is ex - facie without jurisdiction and completely illegal. It is contended that the District Magistrate, Botad has ordered for physical possession of the properties of the petitioners de hors the provisions of the Act and without recording any satisfaction. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Notification dated 5/8/2016 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India does not empower respondent to initiate any action under the provision of SARFESI Act.

3. At the time of arguments, learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards 5 different agreements.

4. It is contended that in one of the account the outstanding amount is only Rs. 78,02,000/-. It is vehemently contended that the respondent has clubbed separate loan amount and thereby they enforced unsecured dues against the properties of the petitioners and therefore action is illegal. It is contended that they have not provided any necessary details under S.13(3) of the SARFESI Act. It is vehemently contended that Tribunal has no jurisdiction and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to take any action under Chap.3 of the SARFESI Act for enforcement of its alleged security interest over the properties in question and the action of the respondent directly hit by S.26(D) of the SARFESI Act.

5. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in case of Embassy Property Developments Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others [Civil Appeal No. 9170 of 2019] wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even though there is an alternative remedy while exercising the power under Art.226 of Constitution of India, the High Court can certainly look into that order is passed without jurisdiction. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed by the single judge in Special Civil Application No. 6305 of 2020 wherein, this Court has taken a view that there is no satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate under the provisions of S.14 of SARFESI Act and the Tribunal has not discussed about anything. Though the contention was raised before DRT, Notice was issued and ad - interim relief was granted. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 159 of 2020 and allied matters. While confirming the judgment of the single judge, the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed that : -
"28. The words used in S.13(3) of the SARFAESI Act are "details of the amount payable by the borrower as also the details of the secured assets intended to be enforced by the Secured Creditor." So, the notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has to necessarily contain the details on the above two counts.
29. Insofar as the first part is concerned i.e. regarding the amount payable by the borrowers, if the intention of the Legislature was only to provide the total outstanding amount or the aggregate amount outstanding and payable by the borrowers, the language would hav