HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4980/2014 1. Master Kshitij Goyal Son Of Late Mr. Ravi Goyal, Since Minor, Represented Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mintu Goyal W/o Late Shri Ravi Goyal, C/o 11 Agresen Market, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Miss Naina Goyal Daughter Of Late Mr. Ravi Goyal, Since Minor, Represented Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mintu Goyal W/o Late Shri Ravi Goyal, C/o 11 Agresen Market, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Miss Mithansha Goyal Daughter Of Late Mr. Ravi Goyal, Since Minor, Represented Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mintu Goyal W/o Late Shri Ravi Goyal, C/o 11 Agresen Market, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 4. Mr. Ram Gopal Goyal Son Of Shri Shiv Sahai Goyal, C/o 11 Agresen Market, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Bank Of India Through Its Authorised Officer And Chief Manager, 11, Gopinath Marg Branch, M.i. Road, Jaipur. 2. Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal - Auction Purchaser Through Authorized Officer, And Chief Manager, 11, Gopinath Marg Branch, M.i. Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : None JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, ‘the DRT’). 2. Admittedly, the aforesaid order is appealable under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) but without availing the alternative statutory remedy contained under Section 18 of the Act of 2002, the (2 of 2) [CW-4980/2014] petitioners have straightway approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 3. It is the settled proposition of law, whenever any alternative remedy is available to a person, he cannot be allowed to by pass the jurisdiction of the said Appellate Authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Ors. reported in 2022 (5) SCC 345 and in the case of Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. Sreenivasulu reported in 2023(2) SCC 168 has held that against any order passed by the DRT, a remedy of filing an appeal is available under Section 18 of the Act of 2002, and the same cannot be assailed before the High Court under its writ jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Varimadugu Obi Reddy (Supra) has deprecated such practice of the High Court, entertaining the writ petition in exercise of the jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitions have been filed without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. 4. On this count alone, the present writ petition stands disposed of. However the petitioners are at liberty to assail the aforesaid order before the DRT. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/116