Alternate remedy under SARFAESI bars writ interference with recovery steps; interim stay on proceedings was unsustainable.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked against SARFAESI recovery measures when an efficacious statutory remedy exists under Section 17 before the DRT and Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court reiterated that the alternate remedy rule applies with particular force in recovery of public dues, and that any exception must be specifically pleaded and supported by recognised grounds. Allegations of natural justice violation were found vague and unparticularised. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained, and the interim stay on recovery proceedings was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be entertained against steps taken under the SARFAESI Act despite the availability of the statutory remedy under Section 17, and whether the interim stay granted by the High Court was sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute concerned recovery measures taken by the secured creditor under Sections 13(2), 13(3A) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The statutory scheme provided a complete mechanism for redress through Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal. The pleadings did not disclose any well-recognised exception to the rule of alternate remedy, and the grievance of violation of natural justice was found to be vague and unsupported by particulars. The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, especially in matters concerning recovery of public dues, and that interim interference with recovery proceedings requires special justification.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained, and the interim order staying recovery proceedings was unsustainable.

---