Kerala High Court
Shanavas A vs The Authorized Officer on 3 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9759 OF 2024
PETITIONER
SHANAVAS A
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHIM, PUTHENVILA HOUSE,
KUNDARA P.O., ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691501
BY ADVS.
K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SWAPNA VIJAYAN
RADHIKA S.ANIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE,
YWCA BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,
SPENCER JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
KUNDARA BRANCH, KALLARAKKAL BUILDING,
MUKKADA JUNCTION, KUNDARA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691501
BY ADV P.A.AUGUSTINE AREEKATTEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.9759 Of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
The petitioner approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the
respondents to stop all further proceedings
pursuant on Ext-P1 e-auction notice against the
properties having extents of 01.11 Ares, 1.09 Ares,
0.20 Ares & 0.60 Ares with building along with shop
admeasuring 3952 Sq. F. bearing Door No. 2/638 &
2/645 in Re-Sy. No. 88/16-2, 88/16-1, 88/1-2 &
88/1-3 in Block No. 17 of Elampalloor Village, and
to permit him to conduct private sale as per Ext-P2
and remit the entire sale consideration to the loan
account;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, demanding the
1st respondent to consider Ext-P3 request and
permit the petitioner to conduct private sale of his
preparty as per Ext-P2 agreement and till then Ext-
P1 may be deferred;
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, demanding the
respondents to furnish the statement of accounts
showing the exact amount repayable by the
petitioner towards the loan amount."
WP(C) No.9759 Of 2024
2. In effect, by challenging Ext.P1 e-auction notice,
the petitioner is challenging the measures taken by the Bank
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the
proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and
others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the Hon'ble Apex Court declared
that no writ petition shall be entertained against the
proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 at the instance of a defaulter
since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate
remedy.
WP(C) No.9759 Of 2024
4. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State
Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784],
the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would
lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view
of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.
5. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon
(supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in
Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756]
declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under
the Securitisation Act.
6. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen
Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29], the Apex Court held that
when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for
appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in
extraordinary circumstances.
WP(C) No.9759 Of 2024
7. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and
others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ
petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation
Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an
effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal
constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate
the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.
In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law
made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ
petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.9759 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9759/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION NOTICE
DATED 01.02.2024 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ONE SAJEER
DATED 21.02.2024
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 07.03.2024 TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
