Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy bar made a challenge to a SARFAESI Section 14 notice premature and not maintainable.

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging only a District Magistrate's notice/summons in pending Section 14 proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was held premature where no final order had yet been passed and an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 was available. The petitioners had also already invoked proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in relation to connected steps under the Act. On these facts, the High Court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against a notice/summons issued by the District Magistrate in proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, when the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy and the Magistrate had not yet passed a final order.

Analysis: The petition challenged only the notice/summons requiring the petitioners to remain present and answer the case in the pending Section 14 proceedings. The dispute had not reached the stage of a final order by the Magistrate. The petitioners also had a statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act, and they had already invoked proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in relation to connected steps taken under the Act. In these circumstances, the writ petition was found to be premature and not fit for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---