Writ jurisdiction barred by efficacious SARFAESI appeal where borrowers delayed challenge and bypassed the statutory remedy.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked where the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious statutory appeal under section 17 and the borrower has not pursued it with reasonable diligence. The bank had issued notice, taken possession of the secured asset and moved to sale, yet the petitioners did not avail the available appellate remedy at those stages. Their challenge was also raised belatedly, after the auction process had progressed and a highest bidder had already been selected. On those facts, the High Court treated the writ petition as unwarranted and held it not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the petitioners' delay in approaching the Court.

Analysis: The bank had initiated action under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notice, taking possession of the secured asset, and then proceeding to sale. At each stage, the borrowers had an efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal under section 17, but they did not avail it. The challenge to the sale notice was also not made promptly, and the petitioners waited until the auction process had advanced and a highest bidder had been selected. In these circumstances, the invocation of writ jurisdiction was considered unwarranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was not liable to be entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 should not be entertained where an efficacious statutory remedy exists and the party approaches the Court belatedly without pursuing that remedy with reasonable diligence.

---