The High Court maintains that statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued over writ jurisdiction when alternative forums are available.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.16670 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 possession notice dated 03.03.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent Authorised Officer, Kerala State Co-operative Bank; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Authorised Officer to consider the objections in Ext.P5 representation dated 09.04.2025, within a specified time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. Ext.P4 possession notice dated 03.03.2025, which was under challenge in the writ petition, was one issued by the 1^st respondent Authorised Officer, invoking the provisions under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), since the loan account of the appellant-petitioner was classified as non-performing asset (NPA) and proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act for recovering the arrears amounting to Rs.22,52,983/- as on April, 2025, by proceeding against the secured asset, i.e., property having an extent of 34.77 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.125/5 of Manimala Village.

3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2025, closed the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the measures taken by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, under Section 17 of the said Act. Paragraph 2 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

“2. The petitioner submits that he is not pressing the first relief, where he questions the notice issued by the bank regarding dispossession. As far as the second relief is concerned, a direction is sought against the bank to consider Ext.P5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I am not inclined to grant any direction to consider the same, as the bank has already proceeded to take steps under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. The remedy of the petitioner challenging the measures taken by the bank under (4) is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.

Without prejudice to the above and without prejudice to any of the contentions of the petitioner, this writ petition is closed.”

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.16670 of 2025, the appellant-petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 .

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Co-operative Bank for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would submit that, though the first relief sought for in the writ petition, i.e., a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 possession notice dated 03.03.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent Authorised Officer may not be maintainable, in view of the statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted the second relief sought for in the writ petition, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Authorised Officer to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P5 representation dated 09.04.2025. The learned counsel would place reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Guru Nanak Engineering Works v.

Reserve Bank of India [2022 KHC OnLine 5812]

7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Stat