Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief unless exceptional grounds such as natural justice breach or lack of jurisdiction are shown.

Availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is a rule of judicial restraint, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. A writ petition under Article 226 should ordinarily not be entertained where the statute provides a complete redress mechanism, and exceptions arise only for violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or other exceptional grounds. As an effective appeal remedy under section 18 was available and no exceptional circumstance was shown, the writ petition was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when an effective statutory appeal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was available.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of judicial discretion and self-imposed restraint, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. The normal rule is that a person should first exhaust the statutory remedy, especially where the statute creates a complete machinery for redressal. The recognised exceptions are cases involving violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or other exceptional grounds warranting interference despite the alternate remedy. As the Act provides for application and appeal to the aggrieved person, the remedy under section 18 was treated as an effective alternative remedy, and no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing that statutory route.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed for availability of an effective alternative remedy.

---