Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent consequences of non-compliance with mandatory statutory appellate requirements.

The petitioner challenged the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal–I (DRT), Ahmedabad, dated 20th November 2020 (rejecting Securitisation Application No. 141 of 2016) and 6th February 2024 (rejecting Review Application No. 5 of 2020)

The petitioner’s loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 31st May 2015, which the petitioner alleged was premature and in violation of RBI norms

Following a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent Bank took possession of the secured assets on 9th October 2015

After the DRT rejected the petitioner’s applications, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai (Diary No. 1028 of 2024)

On 17th January 2025, the DRAT declined to register the appeal due to the petitioner’s failure to pay the prescribed statutory court fees and remove registry defects

The petitioner subsequently filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the original DRT orders, without challenging the DRAT’s dismissal order

1. Whether a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy but failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of depositing the prescribed statutory court fees?

The court primarily considered the discretionary nature of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

It applied the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent the consequences of a party's own default in a statutory forum, specifically regarding non-compliance with the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994, Rule 6(4), which governs the registration of appeals

The court also applied the doctrine of laches and the principle of exhaustion of remedies, noting that once a statutory remedy is exhausted unsuccessfully due to the litigant's lapse, the writ court should not intervene to revive or substitute that remedy

The Court observed that the petitioner had indeed invoked the statutory appellate remedy before the DRAT, Mumbai, which resulted in a dismissal for non-compliance (failure to pay fees and cure defects)

Crucially, the petitioner did not challenge the DRAT’s order of 17th January 2025, allowing it to attain finality

The Court reasoned that permitting a writ petition in such a scenario would amount to allowing the petitioner to bypass the mandatory statutory requirements of the SARFAESI Act and the DRAT Rules through the "backdoor" of Article 227

The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner (e.g., Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. v. Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi), noting that in those instances, petitioners approached the High Court immediately after a DRT order; whereas here, the petitioner actively pursued the appellate remedy and failed due to their own negligence

Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained delay of approximately one year between the DRAT's dismissal and the filing of the present petition, which demonstrated a lack of diligence

The Court declined to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 227, citing both the failure to comply with statutory obligations and the unexplained delay in filing the petition

The petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-