THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.6441 of 2025 Mr. M. Sridhar, learned counsel representing Mr. B.Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner.

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus against the respondent No.1/Punjab and Sind Bank in respect of an e-Auction Sale Notice published in The South India Times, Telangana on 31.01.2025 for sale of an immovable property described in the writ petition and in the e-Auction Sale Notice.

2. The only submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned notice is arbitrary and has been published under the “Draconian” (words used by counsel) provision to The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘The SARFAESI Act, 2002’). Counsel does not have any decisions against the e-Auction Sale Notice. In fact, counsel was given time yesterday to get ready in the matter.

3. In the first call today, the primary document was found to be illegible. Hence the Court gave liberty to counsel to move the matter at 12:30 P.M since counsel prayed for urgent orders.

4. On perusing the impugned notice, it is found that the impugned notice was published on 31.01.2025. The present writ petition was filed on 01.03.2025 i.e., after two months of the said impugned notice. There is not a single paragraph in the writ petition explaining the delay in filing the writ petition.

5. In our considered view, explanation for the delay is of utmost importance since the writ petitioner seeks stay on the auction which is to be conducted today i.e., on 06.03.2025 at 1:00 P.M. Therefore, it was imperative on the petitioner to get ready on the facts, rely on relevant documents including decisions which would support the case of the petitioner. Sadly, we do not find any of the aforesaid factors to our satisfaction when the matter is called on.

6. Needless to say, the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy under the provisions of The SARFAESI Act, 2002 which the petitioner had sufficient time to invoke and apply under the Act from 31.01.2025 to 06.03.2025. Instead of taking recourse to the available remedy, the petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to frivolous invocation of the writ powers of the High Court where the litigant has an effective alternative remedy, we do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition.

7. W.P.No.6441 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 06.03.2025 VSU