APHC010039472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2001 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-12 [3483] Akkarapalli Madhava Reddy ...Petitioner Vs. The Canara Bank and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for petitioner : Sri C. Subodh Advocate for respondents : None CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 28th January 2025 P C : The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). 2. Considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,1 whereby the Apex Court had reiterated the principle that when an alternate remedy was available to a 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:- 1 (2021) 6 SCC 771 2 “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.” 3. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon2 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.” 4. In view of the fact that an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner and the petitioner has been unable to bring the present case within the exceptions carved out in Radha Krishan Industries’s case, we deem it appropriate that the petitioner resorts to avail the alternate remedy. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J AMD 2 [(2010)8 SCC 110 : 2010 INSC 428] 3 94 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2001 of 2025 Dt: 28.01.2025 AMD