Writ petition challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings is not maintainable due to availability of alternative statutory remedy.

The petitioners challenged an e-Auction notice (ID 227607) issued by the Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act, 2002

The petitioners contended that the subject property was purchased by their late father and is currently subject to revenue proceedings before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh

They alleged that Respondent No. 4 (a subsequent purchaser) unlawfully mortgaged the property by suppressing material facts despite a pre-existing title dispute dating back to 2008

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against an e-Auction notice issued under the SARFAESI Act when an alternative statutory remedy exists

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint in matters governed by the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), which provides a specialized mechanism for redressal through the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17

The Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in *ICICI Bank Limited & Ors. v. Umakanta Mohapatra & Ors.* (2019) 13 SCC 497, which held that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions or grant interim orders in SARFAESI matters where statutory remedies are available

It further cited *LIC Housing Finance Limited v. Nagson and Company & Others* (2025) LiveLaw SC 722, reaffirming this position

The Court observed that the e-Auction proceedings are strictly governed by the SARFAESI Act, a special statute enacted for the enforcement of security interests

While the petitioners raised issues concerning title disputes and violations of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court determined that such grievances must be adjudicated by the specialized forum (DRT Jabalpur) rather than through a writ petition

Citing settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court noted that entertaining such petitions amounts to "judicial impropriety" and "judicial adventurism" as it ignores the well-settled legal position that Article 226 should not be used to bypass the efficacious alternative remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act

It declined to interfere with the e-Auction notice and disposed of the petition, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur, to seek appropriate legal remedies

No costs were awarded