Writ jurisdiction is unavailable for SARFAESI auction disputes absent a recognized exception to the alternative-remedy rule.

The petitioner was the highest bidder in an e-auction of land and a building conducted by Punjab National Bank.

After depositing 10% of the bid amount, it alleged that part of the land was barga land and that a portion had been acquired by the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority.

The Bank forfeited the deposit after the petitioner did not pay the balance, cancelled the auction and conducted a subsequent auction, which resulted in a sale certificate and transfer of physical possession to another purchaser.

The petitioner’s civil suit was dismissed following rejection of its plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

It then sought writ relief, including completion of the sale in its favour and delivery of possession.

Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition despite the petitioner having an alternative statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act.

Whether the Court should grant relief concerning the forfeiture of the deposit and the subsequent auction.

The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy does not absolutely bar a writ petition. The recognised exceptions are enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, action without jurisdiction, and a challenge to the vires of legislation.

The Court relied on South Indian Bank Limited & Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr., (2023) 17 SCC 311.

The Court referred to Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as a potential statutory remedy for the petitioner’s grievance.

“as is where is,” “as is what is,” and “whatever there is” sale terms do not excuse illegality, while an auction participant is also expected to obtain information about the property.

The Court found that the petitioner had not established a basis for invoking an exception to the alternative-remedy rule: the alleged property-related grievance was not, on the Court’s reasoning, a violation of a fundamental right, and the Bank’s conduct was not shown to involve a breach of natural justice or an absence of jurisdiction.

The Court did not decide whether the forfeiture, cancellation of the first auction, or subsequent auction was legally proper. It held that those matters should be raised before the appropriate forum; the petitioner could pursue a challenge to the order rejecting its plaint or, if the Tribunal could adjudicate the grievance, apply under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

The petitioner remained at liberty to approach the appropriate forum and raise all its grievances in accordance with law; there was no order as to costs.