A writ petition is not maintainable where an effective statutory appellate remedy under SARFAESI exists.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 27 March 2026 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in S.A. No. 142 of 2019.

By that order, the DRT set aside the auction sale dated 16 September 2022 conducted by Punjab National Bank, the consequential sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, and directed restoration of possession of the mortgaged property to the guarantor along with compensation at the rate of ₹1,000 per month.

The petitioner directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 without pursuing the statutory appellate remedy before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal when an effective statutory appellate remedy was available before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

2. Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the appropriate statutory forum, with the question of limitation left open for consideration by that forum.

The Court applied the settled principle that the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 where an effective alternative statutory remedy is available, particularly in matters concerning recovery of public dues and bank debts.

Relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, the Court held that recovery statutes constitute a self-contained mechanism providing both procedure and specialised adjudicatory and appellate forums, which must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Court further relied on Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 1, and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank & Ors., 2024 INSC 297, reiterating that writ petitions should not ordinarily be entertained where an effective remedy is available under the SARFAESI framework.

The impugned order had been passed by the DRT and was therefore amenable to challenge before the specialised appellate forum, namely the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.

Since the petitioner had bypassed that statutory remedy and had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting direct intervention under Article 226, the High Court applied the alternative-remedy rule with particular rigour applicable to bank-recovery proceedings.

The Court consequently declined to examine the legality or merits of the DRT’s decision concerning the auction sale, sale certificate, possession, or compensation.

The writ petition was disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

The concerned authority was directed to consider the aspect of limitation in accordance with law.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.