Article 226 limits against private banks under SARFAESI, with statutory remedies ordinarily excluding writ relief.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily extend to private banks, financial institutions, or securitisation and reconstruction companies acting under the SARFAESI Act merely because their activities are regulated by the RBI or affect the economy. Private banking is treated as a commercial activity, not a sovereign or public function that by itself makes such bodies amenable to writ relief. The SARFAESI Act also provides a complete statutory remedy through an application under Section 17 and an appeal under Section 18, so borrowers, guarantors and other affected persons must ordinarily exhaust those remedies before approaching the HC. Absent special circumstances, writ petitions challenging SARFAESI measures are not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies against private banks, financial institutions and securitisation/reconstruction companies acting under the SARFAESI Act, 2002; (ii) whether the availability of remedies under the SARFAESI Act bars the writ petitions.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies against private banks, financial institutions and securitisation/reconstruction companies acting under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: Article 226 extends beyond State authorities, but the reach of writ jurisdiction depends on whether the respondent discharges a public duty or performs a public function. Banking by private scheduled banks was held to be a commercial activity carried on under regulatory control, not a sovereign function or a function of such public character as to make the bank a State or an authority for Article 226 purposes. Regulatory supervision by the Reserve Bank of India, or the fact that banking activity affects the economy, does not by itself convert a private bank into a public authority amenable to writ jurisdiction. The same reasoning applied to securitisation and reconstruction companies functioning as private bodies enforcing secured debts.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable against the private banks, financial institutions and securitisation/reconstruction companies on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of remedies under the SARFAESI Act bars the writ petitions.

Analysis: The SARFAESI Act provides a complete remedial scheme through application under Section 17(1) and appeal under Section 18. In matters arising from measures under Section 13(4) and related steps, the borrower, guarantor or any affected person must ordinarily exhaust the statutory remedies before invoking Article 226. No special circumstance was shown to depart from the settled rule of alternative remedy, and the proceedings were left to be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were barred by the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to SARFAESI measures could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory forum under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Private banks and similar non-State bodies engaged in commercial banking are not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction merely because their activities are regulated, and where the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious statutory remedy, Article 226 relief should ordinarily be refused.

---