[2025:RJ-JP:32412-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 998/2025 1. Ramvilas Son Of Shri Ganga Das, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of 29, Green Kunj, Nangal Jaisa Bohara, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Smt. Sushila Devi Wife Of Shri Ram Vilas, Resident Of 29, Green Kunj, Nangal Jaisa Bohara, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Appellants Versus A U Small Finance Bank Limited, Registered Office 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001 And Correspondence Address- Au Centre, 3Rd Floor, Sunny Trade Centre, New Atish Market, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302019 Through Authorized Officer. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hans Raj Kuldeep Mr. Laxmi Narayan Boss Ms. Gargie Boss (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Naresh Vijay with Mr. Ayush Kumar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Judgment 19/08/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. This intra-court appeal is filed against the interim orders dated 04.01.2022 and 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.92/2022. 2. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the sale notice dated 23.11.2021 and the notice dated 09.12.2021 directing the appellant to hand over possession of the mortgaged property. 3. During pendency of the writ petition on 04.01.2022 notice of motion was issued and parties were directed to maintain status [2025:RJ-JP:32412-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-998/2025] quo subject to deposition of Rs.5,00,000/- by the petitioner. On failure to comply the order dated 04.01.2022, the stay was extended on 05.08.2025 for two weeks granting another opportunity to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. On the failure of petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount within two weeks, the respondent-bank was at liberty to proceed with auction proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants on instructions, fairly submits that till today the order dated 05.08.2025 has not been complied with. 5. The issue of maintainability of writ petition in proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in United Bank of India and ors. Vs. Satyawati Tondon and ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110. It was held:- “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 in 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:32412-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-998/2025] 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 coferred 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 coferred 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. 45. 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. 46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which (sic will) ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions [2025:RJ-JP:32412-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-998/2025] carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order.” 6. The Supreme Court in PHR Invent Education Society vs. UCO Bank and ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 579 has reiterated the decision of Satyawati Tondon (supra) and held:- “37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure: (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed: and; (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 38. It has however been clarified 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. 39. Undisputedly, the present case would not come under any of the exceptions as carved out by this Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal. 40. We are therefore of the considered view that the High Court has grossly erred in entertaining and allowing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 41. While dismissing the writ petition, we will have to remind the High Courts of the following words of this Court in Satyawati Tandon since we have come across various matters wherein the [2025:RJ-JP:32412-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-998/2025] High Courts have been entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy. “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.” 7. The only issue raised in the present appeal is that the appellant as on date is not in a position to repay the loan amount and the due amount has been wrongly calculated. None of the contentions raised brings the case within the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court for interference in the writ jurisdiction, inspite of availability of a statutory remedy, the writ petition itself cannot be entertained. 8. The appeal is dismissed relegating the appellants to the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 9. In the eventuality of the appellants filing Securitization Application (SA) before the DRT within two weeks from today and subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- by 25.08.2025, the respondent-bank shall maintain status quo till the stay application is taken up for hearing by the DRT. [2025:RJ-JP:32412-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-998/2025] 10. In view of the above, the writ petition no longer survives as the appeal is dismissed. 11. It is clarified that on failure to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- by 25.08.2025, the respondent-bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the auction proceedings. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/23 Whether Reportable: Yes/No