APHC010170752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9269 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-34 [3483] K Ram Prasad ...Petitioner Vs. The Chief Manager And Authorized Officer and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mrs. V Dyumani Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Manohar Reddy Nandyala CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 28th April 2025 P C : The petitioner’s Securitization Application bearing No.347 of 2019 was dismissed for default vide order, dated 30.07.2024, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. An application subsequently filed by the petitioner herein seeking restoration of the S.A. was dismissed for default by virtue of the order, dated 17.02.2025, by giving a reasoned order. 2. In our opinion, the order does not fall within the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P1, wherein it is held: 1 (2021) 6 SCC 771 2 HCJ & RC, J W.P. No: 9269 of 2025 “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.” Reference in this regard can also be made to the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon2 wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “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.” 3. In our opinion, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the appellate forum against the order impugned. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 2 [(2010)8 SCC 110 : 2010 INSC 428] 3 HCJ & RC, J W.P. No: 9269 of 2025 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J akn 4 HCJ & RC, J W.P. No: 9269 of 2025 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition No: 9269 of 2025 DATE : 28.04.2025 AKN 13