- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2542-DB WA No. 200118 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 200118 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: VIRUPAKSHAPPA BALE S/O BOODEPPA BALE R AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE R/O H.NO.1/17, NEAR BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, MASARKAL TALUKA DEVADURGA DIST: RAICHUR – 584126. …APPELLANT (BY SRI GURUBASAVA BASANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR – 585101. 2. THE TAHASILDAR RAICHUR – 585101. 3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK RAICHUR MAIN II BRANCH (11800) NO.12-10-102 PM TOWERS TIPPU SULTANA CIRCLE GOUSHALA ROAD RAICHUR – 584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2542-DB WA No. 200118 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2025, IN WP NO.200475/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.200475/2025. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.200475/2025 (S-RES), wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Sri. Gurubasava Basanna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the matter is likely to be settled between the appellant and the bank as a one time measure, however the learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect and has dismissed the writ petition. It is submitted that the valuable property of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2542-DB WA No. 200118 of 2025 appellant is being auctioned by the respondent-bank without following the procedure. Hence, he seeks to set aside the order impugned in the writ appeal. 3. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and the material available on record. 4. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the e-auction sale notice at Annexure-C issued by the respondent-bank and sought writ of mandamus to the respondent-bank to allow the appellant to repay Rs.45,00,000/- as per his representation at Annexure-D. Learned Single Judge passed the following order: “2. Heard Sri Gurubasava C.Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. Learned counsel states that the petitioner ought to have approached Debt Recovery Tribunal. Learned counsel states that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2542-DB WA No. 200118 of 2025 as a matter of fact, the writ petition is not maintainable. 3. Having considered the submission thus made, the writ petition stands dismissed.” 5. The challenge in the writ petition is with regard to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”). It is trite law that the writ Court will not ordinarily entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of availability of alternate efficacious remedy under SARFAESI Act. Our view gain support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others.1 6. In view of the settled position of law, we do not find any reason to entertain the present writ appeal and 1 2010 (8) SCC 110 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2542-DB WA No. 200118 of 2025 the same is hereby dismissed with a liberty to the appellant to avail remedy available under law. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE msr List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: PS