Writ jurisdiction is unwarranted where an efficacious alternative remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

The petitioners challenged an execution memo/notice dated 17 April 2026 issued by the Naib Tahsildar and an eviction order dated 23 March 2026 passed by the Collector, Raipur, concerning their residential flat at Wallfort Heights, Raipur.

They also sought restraint against Punjab National Bank from taking coercive or dispossessory steps, creating third-party rights, conducting an auction, or selling the property, and requested time to clear the outstanding loan amount.

During hearing, counsel for the petitioners fairly admitted that, despite a direction of the Court, the petitioners had not deposited the requisite loan amount. Counsel further submitted that an efficacious alternative remedy was available before the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

The State and the Bank did not oppose the petitioners’ submission.

Whether the writ petition challenging the eviction and recovery-related measures was maintainable when the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy before the DRT?

Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction and grant protection against the Bank’s coercive or dispossessory steps in the circumstances of the case?

The Court applied the established principle governing the discretionary exercise of writ jurisdiction that a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained where the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy.

The Court recognised that the concerned DRT constituted the appropriate forum for adjudicating the petitioners’ grievances relating to the Bank’s recovery and possession measures.

The Court also applied the principle that, when relegating a party to an alternative remedy, the writ court should not express any opinion on the merits, leaving the statutory tribunal to decide the dispute independently and in accordance with law.

The petitioners’ own counsel acknowledged both the failure to comply with the Court’s direction to deposit the requisite loan amount and the availability of a remedy before the DRT.

Since the challenge concerned recovery-related action by the Bank and consequential eviction measures, the Court held that the DRT was the appropriate and efficacious forum.

In the absence of circumstances warranting exceptional interference, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction and refrained from examining the merits of the petitioners’ objections.

The petitioners were accordingly relegated to pursue that remedy in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and directed that the DRT consider the matter independently.

The writ petition was disposed of.