Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy under SARFAESI: challenge to Section 14 action must proceed under Section 17

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 was available. The remedy under Section 17 covers grievances arising from measures taken after the Section 13(4) stage, including action under Section 14, and the High Court should ordinarily decline writ jurisdiction where the Act provides a complete redress mechanism before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners were relegated to the Section 17 appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable when an appeal under Section 17 of the Act was available.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 to assist the secured creditor in taking possession after measures under Section 13(4). The available statutory remedy under Section 17 extends to grievances arising from measures taken after the Section 13(4) stage, including action under Section 14. The settled principle applied was that where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction, particularly in SARFAESI matters where the Act provides a complete mechanism for redressal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioners were relegated to the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act.

---