Alternative statutory remedy under SARFAESI bars writ jurisdiction where Section 17 review before the Tribunal is available.

Measures taken under the SARFAESI Act after the Section 13(4) stage, including action under Section 14, are challengeable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. Where that effective statutory remedy is available, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in SARFAESI matters. Because the borrower's grievance could be pursued before the Tribunal and proceedings were already pending there, the writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against measures taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 when a statutory remedy under Section 17 was available.

Analysis: Measures taken after the stage of Section 13(4), including action under Section 14, are amenable to challenge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. Where an effective statutory remedy exists, the High Court ordinarily should not exercise writ jurisdiction in matters arising under the SARFAESI regime. The pendency of the borrower's proceedings before the Tribunal also made it appropriate for the petitioner to work out his grievance in that forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: When SARFAESI measures, including action under Section 14, are challengeable under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and relegate the aggrieved person to the statutory remedy.

---