Madras High Court
The Manager / Authorized Officer vs The Superintendent Of Police on 28 July, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P(MD)No.6655 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.P(MD)No.6655 of 2025
The Manager / Authorized Officer,
PNB Housing Finance Limited,
Nandhini Building 3rd Floor,
New Door No.48, RS No.77/4C,
Plot No.12, Bye Pass Road,
Madurai – 625 010. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Pudur,
Madurai – 625 001.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Oomachikulam Police Station,
Oomachikulam,
Madurai – 625 014. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
W.P(MD)No.6655 of 2025
offer adequate police protection to the officers and the authorized officer of
the petitioner financial institution, at the time of entering into the secured
asset at Madurai District, Madurai North Registration District, Thallakulam
Sub Registration District, Madurai North Taluk, Chettikulam Village, Door
No.4/88-Assessment No.1011 which is comprised in Survey No.110/4, Plot
No.47, totally measuring 2 cents in which land retained by Vijayakumar and
balance land and the house is bounded by north-20 feet wide road, east-Plot
No.46, south-Plot No.50, west- land retained by Vijayakumar and Plot No.
48, in which measuring east west on the north 19 feet and on the south 19
feet and south north on the east 40 feet and on the west 40 feet and totally
measuring 760 square feet land and the house constructed for 47 square
meter namely the secured asset.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Suthakaran
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The Writ Petition has been instituted by the Authorized Officer
of PNB Housing Finance Limited, which is a private finance company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
2.Admittedly, action against the borrower has been initiated
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter, referred to as “the
SARFAESI Act”).
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner Bank is unable to take possession of the property and has filed
an application seeking police protection. Meanwhile, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate has also passed an order under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act.
4.In respect of an order passed under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, further actions are to be initiated in the manner
contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
However, no Writ Petition against the SARFAESI proceedings are
maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
5.The legal position in this regard has been upheld by the
Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna
Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1.
Paragraph Nos.97, 98, 110 and 110.1 of the said decision would be relevant
in this context and they have been extracted hereunder:-
“97.This Court has time and again, reminded the High
Courts that they should not entertain petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved
person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. This Court in
Satyawati Tondon [United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon,
(2010) 8 SCC 110 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260] made the following
observations : (SCC pp. 123 & 128, paras 43-45 & 55)
“43. Unfortunately, the High Court [Satyawati
Tondon v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 2608]
overlooked the settled law that the High Court will
ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the
aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater
rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees,
other types of public money and the dues of banks and
other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing
with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must
keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament
and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a
code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain
comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but
also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for
redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person.
Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist
that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies
available under the relevant statute.
44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are
conscious that the powers conferred upon the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to
any person or authority, including in appropriate cases,
any Government, directions, orders or writs including
the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose
are very wide and there is no express limitation on
exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot
be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved
by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep
in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of
alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of
compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why
the High Court should entertain a petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order
ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective
alternative remedy by filing application, appeal,
revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a
detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
***
55. It is a matter of serious concern that
despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High
Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory
remedies under the DRT Act and the Sarfaesi Act and
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing
orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of
banks and other financial institutions to recover their
dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts
will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater
caution, care and circumspection.”
98.In CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [CIT v. Chhabil Dass
Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603] , this Court in para 15 made the
following observations : (SCC p. 611, para 15)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
“15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court
has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative
remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in
accordance with the provisions of the enactment in
question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the
provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been
passed in total violation of the principles of natural
justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal
case [Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes, 1964 SCC
OnLine SC 13] , Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur
Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC
433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments
that the High Court will not entertain a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative
remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute
under which the action complained of has been taken itself
contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still
holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is
created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition
should not be entertained ignoring the statutory
dispensation.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
110.We summarise our final conclusion as under:
110.1. The High Court was not justified in exercising its
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more
particularly when the borrowers had already availed the alternative
remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.”
6.In view of the above legal position, granting liberty to the
petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, this Writ Petition stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[S.M.S.,J.] & [A.D.M.C.,J.]
28.07.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Pudur,
Madurai – 625 001.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Oomachikulam Police Station,
Oomachikulam,
Madurai – 625 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
ps
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 28.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 12:15:38 pm )
