Writ remedy against SEBI opinion on SARFAESI priority was declined, with statutory appeal held available.

SEBI communications that merely expressed an opinion on the interaction between Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the non-obstante clauses in Sections 26E and 35 vis-a -vis Section 28A(3) of the SEBI Act, 1992 were not treated as adjudicatory orders. A writ petition was therefore not considered the proper remedy to challenge the correctness of that opinion in a private communication. As the grievance was substantially directed against the consequential SEBI order dated 11 January 2023, the statutory appellate remedy under Section 15-T of the SEBI Act, 1992 was held to be available.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition was maintainable against SEBI communications that merely expressed an opinion on the inter se operation of SARFAESI and SEBI laws, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appeal under the SEBI Act.

Analysis: The communications impugned in the petition did not record any adjudicatory order; they only conveyed SEBI's view on the legal position under Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the effect of the non-obstante clauses in Sections 26E and 35 vis-a -vis Section 28A(3) of the SEBI Act, 1992. A writ petition was not considered the proper remedy to test the correctness of such an opinion rendered in a private communication. Since the petitioner's grievance was substantially directed against the consequential SEBI order dated 11 January 2023, the statutory appellate remedy under Section 15-T of the SEBI Act, 1992 was held to be available.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 15-T of the SEBI Act, 1992, and the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to pursue that remedy.

---