Judicial review under Article 226 is not applicable where an effective statutory remedy exists.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order issued by the second respondent dated 20.09.2025 and consequential direction to the respondents to refund the entire bid amount of Rs.45,25,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 12%

per annum from 09.09.2022 till the date of actual realization.

2. At the outset, this Court had directed the petitioner to argue on the maintainability of the writ petition, since the petitioner is seeking to redress the grievance, for which, there is an effective alternate remedy in the form of an application under Section 17 of the 'Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002', (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

3. The learned counsel would submit that the respondent bank had suppressed the fact that the property on site fell short of the measurement given in the auction notice. He would submit that these facts came to his knowledge on perusing the revenue records. He would further argue that there are encroachments on the property in question and therefore, in the light of the suppression of facts, which is contrary to Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, the writ petition is maintainable. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in CDJ 2017 MHC 876 in the case of V.Sambandan Vs., The Punjab National Bank rep., by its Chairman cum Managing Director, New Delhi and another by relying upon paragraph No.59, he would submit that since the bank had not described the encumbrance, he was entitled to act out of the contract and seek refund of the amount.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. The property in question is a vacant site and the description given in the auction notice is the very same description as shown in the title deeds deposited with the bank and the further allegation that the bank had not handed over the possession of the property, cannot also be countenanced inasmuch as the petitioner could have requested the bank to move necessary application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession. That apart, Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act clearly provides an effective alternate remedy.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2010) 8 SCC

110 in the case of United Bank of India Vs., Satyawati Tondon and others was considering the case, where the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court had restrained the bank from proceeding under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The learned judges discussed the scope and ambit of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and in paragraph No.22 therein, had stated that Section 17 provided the remedies available to any person having grievance against the action taken by the secured creditors under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The learned Judges had also discussed the various judicial pronouncements on the extent of the intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. In paragraph No.47, the learned Judges had relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal Vs., Supdt of Taxes reported in AIR 1964 SC 1419, wherein they had observed as follows:

“7.....The jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Article. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merel