44. V,." IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) % V.- TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH v TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE v,/ PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6287 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s Vijaya Educational Society, Represented by its Secretary Mr Chebrolu Mahesh., Having its registered office at D.No. 24-22, Gandhipet, NTR Road Chilakaluripet, Palnadu District - 522616 M/s. Mahesh Mod^n Shopping Malls Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Mr. Chebrolu Mahesh., having its registered office at Gandhipet, NTR Road, Chilakaluripet Town, Chilakaluripet, Palnadu District-522616. 2. ...Petitioners AND Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi-110001. Reserve Bank of India, Represented by its Governor, Central Office, Mumbai - 400001. The Indian Bank, Regional Office, 6/1/211/212 Main Road, Bank Street, Arundelpet, Narasaraopet Palanadu District Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Authorized Officer/Manager Indian Bank, Pandaripuram B^^nch, Represented by its Chief Manager/Authorized Officer. D.No. 141/A, Block 4, GT Road, Chilakaluripet, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Palnadu District 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Advocate Commissioner, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Guntur Bar Association, Guntur ...Respondents Retition under Article 226"of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may i be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriatewrit, order, or direction, a) declaring the action of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Guntur, in passing orders dated 15-02-2025 in CrI.M.P No 158 of 2025 as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, being in violation of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, And to set a side the notice issued by the Respondent no.4 the Notice of sale dated 20-0£-2025 under Rule 6(2) and 8(6)/9(1) of the security interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002 under Sarfaesi ACT 2002 to the Petitioner noVi b) Further, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the classification of the Petitioners loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) by the Respondent Bank as illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable, as it was done without adhering to the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs, issued by the Ministry of MSME vide Notification dated 29ttrMay 2015 under Section 9 oTthe MSMED Act, 2006 aTid c) to direct the Respondents to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in M/S. Pro Knits vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank AND Ors. (2024 INSC 565) and initiate a revival and restructuring process in accordance with the MSME Framework before invoking proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 S--' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass interim order for pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Advocate Commissioner’s Notice dated 24-02- 2025, the warrant issued in CrI.M.P. No. 158 of 2025, and the Notice of Sale dated 20- ■ 02-2025 under the SARFAESI Act take possession of the immovable the interest of justice. 2002. and direct the respondents not properties and to maintain status to quo, in Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s TURAGA Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA MK PRANEETHA SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY The Court made the following order: 4 Bench Sr.No:-LM-2 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010126262025 WRIT PETITION NO; 6287 of 2025 ...Petitioners M/s. Vijaya Educational Society and others Vs. ...Respondents Union of India and others ********** Ms. Turaga MK Praneetha Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India Advocate for Petitioner; Advocate for Respondent: CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICERAVI CHEEMALAPATI ; March, 2025. DATE P C : The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.158 of 2025, by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Guntur, dated 15.02.2025. 2. We are of the opinion that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Appellate. 3. Considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,^ whereby the Apex Court had reiterated the principle that when an alternate remedy was available to a V2021)6SCC 771 2 HCJ & RCJ WP_6287_2025 person, the resort to extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not permitted unless the Court was satisfied that the case of the petitioner fell within any of the exceptions which had been crystallized by the Apex Court as under; “27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation Is challenged.” 4. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon^ wherein the Apex Court held as under: “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. ” 5. In view of the fact that an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioners and that the petitioners have been unable to bring the present case within the exceptions carved out in Radha Krishan Industries’s case, we deem it appropriate that the petitioners avail the alternate remedy. We do not find any reason to interfere at this stage, by invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. ^ (2010) 8 see 110 2010 INSe 428 3 HCJ & RCJ WP 6287 2025 The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 6. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi-110001. 2 The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai - 3 The Authorized Officer/Manager, Indian Bank, Regional Office, 6/1/211/212 Main Road, Bank Street, Arundelpet, Narasaraopet Palanadu District Andhra Pradesh 4. The Chief Manager/Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Pandaripuram Branch, D.No. 141/A, Block 4, GT Road, Chilakaluripet,^ilakaluri pet Mandal, Palnadu District, 5. The Advocate Commissioner, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Guntur Bar Association, Guntur ^ 6. One CC to M/s. Turaga Ml^aneetha Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. Pasala Ponna Rao,Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] / 8. Three CD Copies 00001. GSC T A HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6287 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS