High Courts cannot invoke Article 226 to interfere with statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act when a suitable mechanism exists for resolution, ensuring judicial efficiency and finality.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.46394 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a declaration that the auction proceedings initiated by the respondents, i.e., the State Bank of India and its Authorised Officer is illegal; a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 sale notice dated 20.11.2025 issued by the 2^nd respondent Authorised Officer as the same is illegal, void and violative of Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, due to non-publication on the designated portal and for arbitrary gross undervaluation; a writ of mandamus granting the petitioner a period of four months to clear the entire outstanding liability, by liquidating his foreign assets, keeping the sale proceedings in abeyance; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith furnish a copy of the valuation report relied on in Ext.P4.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner availed a Home Loan from the 1^st respondent Bank, on 17.10.2018, for a total limit of Rs.2,06,71,000/-. The said loan was secured by an equitable mortgage over 12.55 Ares of land and a residential building situated in Re.Sy.No.159/12, Chirakkal Village, Kannur District. On account of the default committed by the petitioner in repayment, the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act ) were initiated.

3. On 18.12.2025, when W.P.(C)No.46394 of 2025 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Paragraphs 2 to 6 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:

“2. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has only deposited Rs.5 lakhs, though the amount was Rs.20 lakhs. Thereafter, the installments were also not remitted. The first installment was to be paid on 08.09.2025. According to the respondent Bank, even today they are ready to accept the amount remitted pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Bank has valued the property at the time of availing the loan to the tune of Rs.4,39,10,000/-, which is discernible from Ext.P1 sanction letter. But according to the petitioner, when Ext.P4 sale notice is issued, the reserved price fixed is Rs.1,65,00,000/-. So, the property is undervalued.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the Authorised Valuer has valued the property on 20.09.2025 and 23.09.2025, wherein the valuation is fixed as follows:

Value of the property as on 20.09.2025

Fair Market Value =Rs.1,78,01,000/-

Realizable value =Rs.1,60,00,000/-

Forced/Distress sale value =Rs.1,56,00,000/-

Circle Value of the property as on 23.09.2025

Present Fair Market value of the property = Rs.1,72,28,000/-

Realisable value of the property = Rs.1,55,05,000/-

Distress value of the property = Rs.1,37,82,000/-

5. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 sale notice before this Court. It is seen that Ext.P4 was issued on 20.11.2025 for the sale of the property on 26.12.2025. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no public notice and the sale is not reflected on the website of the Bank even today.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], has held as follows:

“Powers conferred under Art. 226 are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circu