Quantified recovery demands require prior determination of liability and hearing; alternative appellate remedy does not bar writ relief in exceptional cases.

A quantified recovery cannot be sustained where the underlying order does not determine the liability or explain the computation, and the affected party was not given notice and an opportunity of hearing before the demand was raised. In such circumstances, the availability of an alternative appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction, because the real grievance is the absence of a lawful determination of the recoverable amount. The recovery notice was therefore quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination after hearing the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative appellate remedy under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; (ii) Whether the recovery notice demanding a quantified sum could be sustained when the underlying order did not determine the amount payable and no prior opportunity of hearing was given.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative appellate remedy under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.

Analysis: Although an appellate remedy was available, the impugned recovery action raised a foundational difficulty, namely, the absence of a determined liability in the original order and the absence of a hearing before arriving at the recovery figure. In such circumstances, relegating the petitioners to the alternative remedy would not have addressed the real issue requiring immediate correction.

Conclusion: The existence of an alternative remedy did not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the recovery notice demanding a quantified sum could be sustained when the underlying order did not determine the amount payable and no prior opportunity of hearing was given.

Analysis: The earlier order directed winding up of the scheme and refund of money collected with returns due, but it did not fix any specific liability or explain how the recovery figure was computed. The recovery notice therefore proceeded on a quantified demand without prior notice or hearing to the petitioners. The Court held that the authority was required to issue notice, hear the petitioners, and then determine the amount payable in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The recovery notice was quashed and the matter was remitted to the authority for fresh determination after hearing the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the impugned recovery action could not stand, and the authority was required to reconsider the recoverable amount afresh after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A quantified recovery cannot be enforced where the foundational order does not determine liability and the affected party has not been heard on the computation, and the availability of an alternate remedy will not preclude writ interference in such exceptional circumstances.

---