The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particurarry one in nature of writ of Mandamus to decrare the proceedings of the 1st respondent in trying to dispossesses the petitioners from the prot No.21 and 20(p), admeasuring 335 sq.yds situated in Sy.No.50, Saheb Nagar Khurd, Hayathnagar Mandat, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District, as arbitrary, iflegar and unconstitutionar and to direct the respondents direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the Plot No.21 and 20(p), admeasuring 335 sq.yds situated in Sy.No.SO, Saheb Nagar Khurd, Hayathnagar Mandal, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District, till the disposal of Appear fired in Dairy No.305/202s, before the DRAT, Korkata. / IA NO:1 0F 2025 Petition under liection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances steted in theaffidavitfiledinr;r.rpportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedto directtherespondentsnottodispossessthepetitioners.fromtheF)lotNo.21and 20(P), admeasuring :135 sq yds situated in Sy No'50' Saheb Nagar Khurd' Hayathnagar Mandal, 'r/anasthalipuram, R R'District' pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. counserf orthePetitirr""''iT!,,fr1vl3rtff txfl?ALEKHA Gounsel for the Resp'cndent No'1 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' DePutY Solicitor General of lndia Counsel for the ResPondent No'2 : The Court made the following: ORDER .'.'.- 6 ,- THE HON'BLE SRI.IUSTICE C.V.BHAS I{AR REDDY WRTT PE.TITIONNo.10600 of2025 ORDER: This writ petition has been liled seeking to declare the proceedings issued by respondent No. 1 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from plot No.21 & 20(p), admeasuring 335 square yards, situated in Survey No.50, Saheb Nagar Khurd, Hayathnagar Mandal, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the said property till the disposal of Appeal pending before the Debts Recovery App.cllate Tribunal (DRAT).

2. The petitioners claim to be the absolute o!./ners of plot bearing Nos.21 & 2O(p), admeasuring 335 square yards, situated in Survey No.SO, Saheb Nagar Khurd, Hayathnagar Mandal, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the saine under a registered sale deed, vide document No.4aa7 /19a2 dated, 07.O2.19g2- It is stated that the petitioners constructed a srnall room and a compound wall encircling the said property arrd also obtained electricity connection from the concerned authority. It is further stated that one M/s. Ameya Laboratories Limited (formerly ANUS 2 Laboratorics Lt.d.,) situated at A-49, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad has availeci finance/loan from the State Bank of India, Colaba Branch, MurrLbai, by mortgaging the petitioners' subject property u'it.hc,ut their consent and knowledge' It is further stated that lvhen the said company failed to discharge the liability, the said Bank appears to have proceeded under the provisions of Lre Securitisation ald Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Ettlorcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (f'lr short "the SARFAF)fil Act") by way of filing O'A'No.779 of 2Ol7 (originatly O r\. No.267 of 2Ol4l before the Debts F:ecovery Tribunal (DRll, Hyderabad, which in turn has decreed the same for an amo':nt of Rs.50,18,36,250 l- vide judgmen L dated 2g.ll.2}l8. t'- is further stated that it is only on 13'il9'2o23 when the war-rant of attachment was affrxed on the wa1l of their subject proprl rty, the petitioners carne to know about lhe said proceedings and as such they hled a petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.A.No.779 ol 2Ol7 and alsro MAIR No.1782 of 2'023 along with a petition for condonation of delay of 1851 days in MA.No'214 of 2023. However, the DRT' refused to condone Jre delay and dismissed the same on O5 03'2025 and challenglng the said dismissal order, the petitioners approachecl l):re DRAT, Koll<ata by way of filing Appeal in Diary ,C) - J No.35 of 2025, which is not yet numbered, on the objection that 25o/o of the decretal amount in O.A.No.7Z9 of 2017 is not deposited, which is the condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they have not mortgaged the subject property to the SBI, the respondents herein are proceeding to take possession of the same, taking advantage of the fact that the appeal liled by the petitioners has not been taken up by the DRAT. 3. Mr. Vedula Srinivas, Iearned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently contended that while filing the appea-l before the DRAT vide Diary No.35 of 2025, the petitioners have also filed an application seeking. waiver of deposit of the 25o/o of the decretal amount, which is the condition precedent for entertaining the appeal, wherein the DRAT has issued notice; and pending adjudication of the said application, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. 4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Admittedly an appeal frled by the petitioners challenging the decree passed by the DRT is pending before the DRAT, 4 .) which is in releLtion to recovery of money due to the Balk:' Since the matter is ,erising under the provisions of the SARFAE)SI Act' inrelhtionl.orecoveryofmoneyduetotheBank'anCmore particuiarly vrrren the alternative statutory remedy ha s been availed by tlre petitioners and the same is pend ing for adjudication llefore the DRAT, this Court carnot ':xercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of tl'te Constitution of India.

6. The HorLtrle Apex Court, while dealing with similar issue' in the case o' Phr Inuent Educational Societg tts' uco Bankl ' observed as tt'rder:-

14. The larv with regard to entertaining a petition un Jer Arncle 226 of the Constjtution in case of availabili[ of alternati v,: remedy is u'ell settled' In the case of uruted Bank of thdia u- Satgawati Tondon and Others ([201t1] 9 SCR I : (:1010) I SCC 110), this Court observed thus; "43' Unfortunrrtely, the High Court cverlooked the settled law that the l{igh Court will ord'inarily not entenain a pclir ion under Arricle 226 of the Constitution if an effective re:nedy is availerl;le to the aggrieved person and that this r-ule appLes '*ith greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, corls, fees, other types of public rooney and the dues of bank s and other hnancia-l institutions ln our r iew' wtule dt:;rling with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc' the l{igh '[2 024] 4 s.c.R. 541 n - 5 Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliam ent and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi_judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authoriqr, including in appropriate cases, 550 [20241 4 S.C.R. Digita] Supreme Court Reports any Govemment, directions, orders or writs including the live prerogative r,rrits for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we calnot be oblivious of the rules of self_imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in vrew while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is dilfrcult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of tJ:e Constitution and pass interim order ignodng the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal ofhis grievance.. 1 6 o - th.e

15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petrtion under .{rticle 226 of the Constitution if an effective remec$ is avallable to the aggrieved person' It has been held thret this ru1e, .rpplies with greater rigour in matters involvirtg recovery c,f taxes, cess, fees, other t5rpes' of public mon':y and the dues of banks and other financial institutions' The Court clt:rrly observed that, while dealing with Ibr petitjons involling challenge to the action taken recovery r,f the public dues, etc', the I{igh Court rrust keep in mind lat the legisiations enacted by Parliament a rd State kp,i slaiures for recovery of such dues are a code unto Orerrselves inasmuch as they not only coct:rin comprehtrnsive procedure fc:: recovery of the dues but a lso envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person' It has been held that, thou g.h the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of trr': Constitution are of widest amplitude ' still the Court-s t annot be oblivious of the rules of self-impor;ed restraint t:volved by this Court' The Court further held that though r.tie rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a compulsion' still i: is rule of ,liscretion and not one of diffrcult t) fathom any reason why the High Court should frled under Arlicle 226 of the entertailr a Petition . ConstitL.tion. 21. Recently, in the case of Cetir LLP u Bafna Motors (tr4umbai) Piuate Limited and Others [2023] 13 SCR 53' after surreying various judgments of this Court' the C':urt obsen,el thus: '101. More than a decade back' this Ccurt had e:.Jrressed serious conceln clespite its repeated pronoulr:emcnts in regard to the High Courts ig-noring' the a{irilabill ty of statutcry rernedies under t}re RDBFI Act and l :t a) 7 the SARFAESI Act and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even after, the decision of this Court in United Bank of India u. Satyantati Tondory ((2O1O) I SCC 1j0: (2OtO) 3 SCC (Ciu) 260l , itappears that the High Courts have continued to exercise its u,rit jurisdiction under Article 226 ignorirLg the statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act." In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court

7. is not inclined.to entertain the present writ p€tition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRUM DEVl DEPUTY E ISTRAR To,

1. One CC to SMT.VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate. tOpUCJ ' 3,?8 33,ji BT i gl?:i"syE,:I,[Hy*1,9""8ts?,: ?38,r!f " r of , nd i a ), n ",., SECTIO OFFICER

3. Two CD Copies. BSK BS s HIGH COURT DATED:09104111025 CC TODAY ,<: o\. 1r.ie i i-iq 7 c () \\ 11APn zffi ',:i) ,L it --, /t <, .// r.. '!_.,-.-.- '' ==- ..//:/ L') o '-:/ ORDER WP.No.10600 of 2025 DISMISSING'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS CO c#\4 9"" \\