Writ relief may be refused where SARFAESI remedies exist and intervention would frustrate a sale involving public dues.

Writ relief was declined against a SARFAESI e-auction because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and had not pursued it. The Court held that Article 226 intervention may be refused where it would be unjust or improper, especially where further delay would obstruct a sale involving public dues, and it therefore left the auction undisturbed while keeping any lawful claim against the sale proceeds open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained and the auction under the SARFAESI Act interfered with in the face of an alternative statutory remedy and the wider public interest in completing the sale.

Analysis: The petition sought to stop the e-auction of properties being sold by a bank under the SARFAESI Act on the basis of provident fund dues and an attachment order passed by the provident fund authorities. The Court noted that the petitioner had not pursued the remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It also held that Article 226 relief may be refused where granting it would be unjust or improper, particularly where further delay would waste the property and prolong obstruction of a sale involving public dues. The Court therefore declined to interfere, without finally deciding the broader question whether the provident fund authorities could lift the corporate veil.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the sale was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, while leaving open any lawful claim the petitioner may have against the sale proceeds.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ relief may be declined when an efficacious statutory remedy exists and intervention would be contrary to public interest, even if some arguable entitlement to relief is asserted.

---