Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable where an effective statutory remedy exists against bank dues.

The petitioner challenged the Branch Manager’s order dated 22 November 2016 rejecting his representation concerning the alleged outstanding dues in Current Cash Credit Account No. 543. He sought recalculation of the amount due as on 31 December 2000 after adjustment of ₹81,670 from 1 February 2000, exclusion of fixed deposits allegedly furnished as security for the loan, acceptance of the recalculated dues, and payment of the matured value of the fixed deposits with updated interest.

Earlier, in CWJC No. 12154 of 2010, the High Court had directed the Bank to pass a speaking order on the petitioner’s representation, without adjudicating the merits and leaving the matter to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition challenging the Bank’s subsequent order.

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable when an alternative and effective statutory remedy was available to the petitioner in relation to the Bank’s recovery-related dispute.

Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the appropriate statutory forum, subject to the concerned authority considering the question of limitation.

The Court applied the rule that the High Court ordinarily should not entertain a petition under Article 226 where an effective alternative remedy is available, particularly in matters concerning recovery of public money and dues of banks or financial institutions. Relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, the Court held that statutory recovery mechanisms constitute a comprehensive code and should ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.

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

The Court treated the petitioner’s claims regarding recalculation of bank dues, adjustment of security deposits, and repayment of the fixed-deposit amount as matters for determination by the competent statutory forum rather than in writ jurisdiction. Applying the alternative-remedy doctrine, the Court held that the availability of an effective remedy rendered the present writ petition not maintainable.

The Court also noted that the earlier writ order had expressly refrained from deciding the merits and had left the dispute to the Bank’s competent authority in accordance with law; therefore, that earlier order did not justify a fresh merits-based adjudication under Article 226.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The Court directed that the concerned authority should consider the issue of limitation while examining any such remedy.