Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49529
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
P.V.HARIDAS – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, JMFARC - FEDERAL BANK – Respondent
WP(C)/40913/2017
SRI.N.M.MADHU, SMT.C.S.RAJANI, SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.K.MADHUSOODANAN, SRI.T.G.PAUL, SRI.MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU), SRI.SYRIAC JOSEPH
The existence of effective alternative remedies precludes the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 in cases involving statutory notices.
Headnote:
Securitisation - Writ Petition - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 14, 17 - The court held that a sale notice issued under the Act must comply with established procedures, and the existence of alternative remedies rendered the writ petition under Article 226 non-maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges a notice of sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, asserting it was improperly issued while a related dispute was pending in another tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had effective alternative remedies to contest the sale notice and that they should utilize those remedies rather than initiating writ proceedings.
Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when alternative remedies are available against the impugned sale notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that when alternative remedies exist, particularly in the context of statutory provisions governing securitization, recourse through these established channels is preferable to writ petitions.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed as non-maintainable.
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P2 notice of sale issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act), is under challenge in the writ petition.
2. It is seen that earlier, when the second respondent obtained an order under Section 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the property now put to sale, the first petitioner filed S.A.No.343 of 2015 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam challenging the said proceedings and the same is pending. It is alleged that during the pendency of the said securitisation application, the second respondent issued a fresh possession notice in respect of the very same property and brought the same for sale in furtherance to the said possession notice in terms of the impugned sale notice. The case set up by the petitioners is that the impugned sale notice is not one issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
3. If the present sale notice is one issued in furtherance to the proceedings referred to in Ext.P1 application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioners have to challenge the impugned sale notice in Ext.P1 application itself. Otherwise, the petitioners have to challenge Ext.P2 notice in a fresh application under Section 17 of the Act. At any rate, when the petitioners have effective alternative remedies against Ext.P2 notice, this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
