Alternative statutory remedy under SARFAESI bars writ jurisdiction when an effective appellate appeal is available.

An efficacious statutory appeal under the SARFAESI Act generally bars recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when the borrower can pursue the alternative appellate remedy after rejection of the Section 17 application. The High Court will ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition or writ appeal in such circumstances, particularly where precedent recognises that an effective statutory remedy should not be bypassed except in limited exceptional cases. The operative result stated in the text is that the writ appeal was not maintainable on merits and the dismissal of the writ petition for availability of an alternative remedy was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeal could be entertained when an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal was available under the SARFAESI Act, and whether the writ petition was rightly dismissed on that ground.

Analysis: The appellant had challenged the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act. The statutory scheme provided a remedy of appeal under Section 18 after dismissal of the application under Section 17. In such circumstances, the High Court was not required to entertain a writ petition under Article 226, particularly when the matter was covered by precedent holding that availability of an effective statutory remedy justifies refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction except in recognised exceptional situations.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was not maintainable on merits and the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, the High Court normally will not exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to bypass that remedy.

---