Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review where securitisation disputes involve contested facts and contractual liability.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal under the securitisation law, particularly where the appellate forum can consider waiver or reduction of the deposit requirement. The petition also raised disputed questions of fact and contractual or guarantor liability arising from a mortgage arrangement, which were matters for the statutory appellate forum rather than writ adjudication. The High Court therefore held the writ petition not maintainable and dismissed it in view of the available alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the securitisation law, and whether disputed questions of fact could be examined in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition challenged recovery proceedings and the impugned recovery certificate, but the statutory scheme provided an appellate remedy requiring deposit, with power in the appellate forum to waive or reduce the deposit amount. The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, especially where adjudication would require determination of disputed facts. It also noted that contractual and guarantor liability disputes arising from the mortgage arrangement were matters fit for the appellate forum, not for bypassing the statutory process through writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed because the petitioner had an available statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass that remedy, particularly when the dispute turns on contested questions of fact or contractual liability.

---