Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to SARFAESI possession-related proceedings, leaving debtor to tribunal review.

A writ petition challenging a District Magistrate's order under the SARFAESI framework was held not maintainable because the measure followed the stage of Section 13(4) and fell within the statutory remedy under Section 17(1). The High Court applied the settled rule that Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, particularly in bank recovery matters. The challenge to the Section 14 proceedings was therefore required to be pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could maintain a writ petition against the District Magistrate's order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act despite the statutory remedy under Section 17, and whether the High Court should interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The order under Section 14 was treated as a measure taken after the stage of Section 13(4), and therefore as falling within the scope of the appeal remedy under Section 17(1). The Court relied on the settled principle that where an efficacious statutory remedy is available, the High Court should ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226, especially in matters concerning recovery of bank dues. The appellant's challenge to the Section 14 proceedings was therefore held to be one that could be pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the appellant was relegated to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

---