THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.25830 of 2023
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Ms. P.Hamsa Durga, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed
the validity of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.18 of 2023 by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hanumakonda.
4. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order an appeal
lies under Section 17 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as
"the SARFAESI Act") in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
::2::
Supreme Court in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v.
Central Bank of India and another 1.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India
v. Satyawati Tondon 2 has deprecated the practice of the
High Courts in entertaining the writ petitions despite
availability of an alternative remedy. The aforesaid view has
also been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu 3. The relevant
extract of para 36 reads as under:
"36. In the instant case, although the
respondent borrowers initially approached the
Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of pre-deposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under 1 (2019) 9 SCC 94 2 (2010) 8 SCC 110 3 (2023) 2 SCC 168 ::3::
Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the 2002 Act"
6. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
7. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 15.09.2023 KL