- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21638 WP No. 16966 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 16966 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE S/O LATE P MUNEER AHMED AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.19 SUBHASHNAGAR N R MOHALLA, MYSORE 570 007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T A KARUMBAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/GENERAL MANAGER ENCORE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD 5TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.137, SECTOR 44, GURGAON HARYANA 122002 AND ALSO AT AUTHORIZED OFFICER, K SAGNEDRAN, MYSORE REG. UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES ACT 1956. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M S SURYANARAYANA RAO., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OD INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE -F THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 29.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21638 WP No. 16966 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner may be relegated to avail of the substantive remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 2. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various contentions, it is relevant to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appropriate remedy would be to relegate the petitioner to seek for substantive remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are as follows: "43. Unfortunately, the High Court 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21638 WP No. 16966 of 2025 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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21638 WP No. 16966 of 2025 Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 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." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21638 WP No. 16966 of 2025 3. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that further action that is contemplated is e-auction on 09.07.2025 and accordingly, the apprehension of the petitioner that before 09.07.2025, any further action will be taken, does not arise. 5. Recording the said submission, petition is disposed off. Needless to state that it is open for the petitioner to have the dues cleared or settled by approaching the Bank. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP