APHC010403212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 21548/2025 Between: 1. A. VASU DEVA RAO, S/O A. ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O COLANY, BEJJI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LIMITED IIFL HOME AUTHORIZED OFFICER, R/O 1ST FLOOR, RING ROAD JUNCTION, OPPOSITE BELLAM MARKET, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED LARC, REP., BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, R/O A 601, 6TH FLOOR, 215 ATRIUM, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig pleased to Pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to remit the total outstanding loan amount of 4,27,482.50 and proceeding with the auction dated 26.03.2025 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 21548/2025 A. VASU DEVA RAO, S/O A. ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O COLANY, BEJJI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER AND INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LIMITED IIFL HOME LOAN, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, R/O 1ST FLOOR, RING ROAD JUNCTION, OPPOSITE BELLAM MARKET, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED LARC, REP., BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, R/O A FLOOR, 215 ATRIUM, ANDHERI - KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-400093. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be Pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to remit the total outstanding loan 4,27,482.50 and proceeding with the auction dated 26.03.2025 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act-thereby taking possession of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA A. VASU DEVA RAO, S/O A. ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O COLANY, BEJJI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER LOAN, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, R/O 1ST FLOOR, RING ROAD JUNCTION, OPPOSITE BELLAM MARKET, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED LARC, REP., BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, R/O A- KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI 400093. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the h Court may be Pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to remit the total outstanding loan 4,27,482.50 and proceeding with the auction dated 26.03.2025 thereby taking possession of the 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21548 of 2025 mortgaged property bearing Plot No. 22 (North Part), Perams Aditya Varna, Phase Sy. No. 282/1P, Layout No. 117/2017, situated at Tatituru Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District-without affording the petitioner reasonable time or opportunity to clear the dues, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, (a) direct the respondents to accept the full and final loan repayment of 4,27,482.50 and set aside the auction proceedings dated 26.03.2025 and (b) direct the respondents to restore possession of the said mortgaged property to the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SONTI GOPI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HEMADRI V S S R R CHANDRAKANTH 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21548 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemadri.V.S.S.R.R. Chandrakanth, learned counsel for respondent No.1-India Infoline Finance Limited (IIFL) Home Loan. 2. The petitioner is the borrower who has availed loan from respondent No.1. The petitioner has offered the property in question as security for the loan that was availed from respondent No.1. As the petitioner has committed default in re-payment of the loan amount, respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’), and brought the secured asset for sale in the auction and sold the same. Challenging the said sale and the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, on the ground that without following the procedure prescribed under the Act that the proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has taken objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal and without approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance that the petitioner has approached this Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of South Indian Bank 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21548 of 2025 Ltd. and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and others1. The Apex Court in the said judgment has deprecated the practice of entertaining the writ petitions in such commercial matters where an efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute to adjudicate the disputes relating to the said lis. In para No.13 of the judgment, the Apex Court held has follows: “We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. We are also constrained to take judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before this Court.” 4. Therefore, in view of the settled law that, when an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute, the petitioner has to approach the said forum seeking redressal of his grievance, it cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for redressal of his grievance. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. In case, the petitioner files any Securitization Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it shall be considered and decided on merits, according to law. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 (2023) 17 SCC 311 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21548 of 2025 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 06.11.2025 MDP