S. Visalatchi Vs Authorised Officer (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an e-auction sale notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, and Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The court, in the case of S. Visalatchi Vs. Authorised Officer, reiterated the established legal principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act. The judgment underscored the consistent stance of the Supreme Court on this matter, emphasizing judicial restraint in such circumstances.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking to challenge the e-auction sale notice. However, the court’s immediate observation was that the impugned proceedings were amenable to an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) as stipulated by the SARFAESI Act. This availability of a statutory appeal mechanism rendered the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution generally not maintainable.
To support its decision, the Kerala High Court heavily relied on a series of Supreme Court pronouncements that have consistently cautioned High Courts against entertaining writ petitions when efficacious alternative remedies exist. A key precedent cited was Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1. In this judgment, the Supreme Court explicitly held that High Courts are not justified in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy is contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, especially if the borrowers have already availed the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act.
