Writ maintainability and Section 14 compliance under SARFAESI determine the legality of possession and property deprivation.

Writ jurisdiction was treated as maintainable despite the SARFAESI Act's alternative remedy where the challenge concerned the legality of possession-taking and alleged deprivation of property without authority of law. Possession under Section 14 must be taken strictly by the Magistrate or by an officer subordinate to him acting within the statutory authorisation; a chain of delegation to police authorities without clear statutory basis was treated as non-compliance. The taking of movable assets beyond the mortgage and failure to follow the required notice directions also indicated breach of the statutory mandate, and the resulting deprivation of property was treated as contrary to Article 300A. The possession action was set aside in substance, leaving respondents free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory remedy under the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002. (ii) Whether taking possession of the secured and movable assets was in conformity with Section 14(1-A) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory remedy under the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy under the SARFAESI regime does not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction where the manner of action complained of is prima facie contrary to law and involves governmental action affecting constitutional rights. The petition was entertained because the challenge was not merely to the debt recovery process but to the legality of the possession-taking exercise and the alleged deprivation of property without authority of law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether taking possession of the secured and movable assets was in conformity with Section 14(1-A) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 14 permits the Magistrate to take possession or authorise an officer subordinate to him to do so, and the exercise of such power must remain within the statutory framework. The possession in question was taken through a chain of delegation to police authorities, without material showing that the delegate was subordinate to the Magistrate in the manner required by the statute. The prior notice directions recorded in the proceedings below were also not complied with in respect of all affected petitioners, and movable articles not covered by the mortgage were also taken. These features showed non-compliance with the statutory mandate and a deprivation of property otherwise than by authority of law.

Conclusion: The taking of possession was held to be contrary to law and violative of Article 300A.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded on merits, the impugned possession action was set aside in substance, and the respondents were left free to proceed afresh only in accordance with the statutory mandate.

Ratio Decidendi: Possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act must be taken strictly by the Magistrate or by an officer subordinate to him acting within the statutory authorisation, and any deprivation of property in breach of that mandate is amenable to writ correction notwithstanding the existence of alternative remedies.

---