Statutory appeal under SARFAESI bars writ jurisdiction where an affected person has an efficacious remedy before the Tribunal.

A writ petition challenging a District Magistrate's order under the SARFAESI Act was treated as not maintainable because Section 17 provides an efficacious statutory appeal against measures taken under Section 14 after the Section 13(4) stage. The expression "any person" in Section 17 was given wide meaning and was not confined to the borrower, so an affected party could approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In these circumstances, the High Court would ordinarily decline to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the District Magistrate's order under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 17.

Analysis: The impugned order under Section 14 was treated as a measure taken after the stage contemplated by Section 13(4), for which an appeal lies under Section 17. The expression "any person" in Section 17 is of wide import and is not confined to the borrower alone. The petitioner, being a person claiming to be affected by the secured creditor's action, had an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In these circumstances, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious appeal under Section 17 to any aggrieved person against measures taken under Section 14 after the Section 13(4) stage, the High Court should ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition under Article 226.

---