Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings are inadmissible given the availability of statutory remedies before the DRT.

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on admission.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, after the issuance of the sale certificate by the respondent bank to the 6^th respondent-auction purchaser and after his taking possession of the property under the SARFAESI Act, seeking the following reliefs;

“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing all proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (SARFAESI Act), including but not limited to the possession notice, the Exhibit P16 sale certificate issued in favour of the 6th Respondent, and all consequential actions taken thereunder, including the ongoing demolition of the Petitioners' residential house in respect of the scheduled properties comprising 7.833 cents in Survey No. 1055/3-16 and 9.40 cents in Survey No. 1055/3-17 of Cheranelloor Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District.

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring that the mortgage created by the 2nd Respondent, Mr. George Mathew, in favour of the 1^st Respondent CSB Bank Ltd. over the scheduled properties is fraudulent, void ab initio, and consequently, the 1st Respondent Bank has no valid security interest over the said properties.

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 1st Respondent Bank to forthwith restore peaceful physical possession of the scheduled properties, including the residential building situated thereon, to the Petitioners.

d) Issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, restraining the 1st Respondent Bank and the 6th Respondent, their agents, servants, or anyone acting on their behalf, from carrying out any further demolition, alteration, or alienation of the scheduled properties, pending final adjudication of S.A. No. 202/2020 before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, or until further orders from this Honourable Court.

e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 3rd Respondent (The Tahsildar, Kanayannoor Taluk), the 4^th Respondent (The District Collector, Ernakulam District), and the 5^th Respondent (The Sub Registrar, Ernakulam Sub Registrar Office) not to register any sale deed, encumbrance, or effect any mutation in the revenue records in respect of the scheduled properties based on the fraudulent mortgage or the impugned sale certificate issued by the 1st Respondent Bank.

f) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, to consider and dispose of S.A. No. 202/2020 expeditiously, preferably within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court, and to consider any interim application for protection of the property with utmost urgency .”

3. The averment in the writ petition shows that SA No.202 of 2020 is now pending before the DRT and the challenge therein is regarding the alleged illegal and void mortgage created by the second respondent, in favour of the first respondent. It is also stated in the writ petition that SA No.202 of 2020 is now posted for hearing on 17.04.2026.

4. Be that as it may, the Honourable Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decisions in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others [2022 KHC OnLine 6040] , South Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 KHC OnLine 6435] and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [2024 KHC OnLine 6208], have categorically held that the writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings must not be entertained since the aggrieved persons have an alternative and efficacious rem