APHC010043322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2476 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-19 [3483] Vakkalagadda Subbarao and others ...Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioners : Mrs. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba Advocate for Respondents : -- CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 4th February, 2025 P C : We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In the present case, we are of the opinion that there is an equally efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioners which could be invoked more so in view of the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon 1 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, 1 [(2010)8 SCC 110 : 2010 INSC 428] 2 HCJ & RC,J WP_2476_2025 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.” Similar view is expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Celir LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd., 2 wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “97. This Court has time and again, reminded the High Courts that they should not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. … 101. More than a decade back, this Court had expressed serious concern despite its repeated pronouncements in regard to the High Courts ignoring the availability of statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even after the decision of this Court in Satyawati Tondon, it appears that the High Courts have continued to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ignoring the statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act.” 2 (2024) 2 SCC 1 3 HCJ & RC,J WP_2476_2025 3. We dispose of the Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J Vjl