- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164172024 NC: 2026:KHC:39025 WP No. 7984 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 7984 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR. AZEEZ KHAN, S/O GUDIBAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, 1ST CROSS, RAHMATH NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. RAVI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (MANAGER) THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.651/A, 'D' BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, 1ST MAIN, DR. RAJKUKMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MOUNIKA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LOKESH K.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164172024 NC: 2026:KHC:39025 WP No. 7984 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Smt.Mounika M., counsel on behalf of Sri.Lokesh K.V., for respondent No.1 appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed in Cri.Misc.No.6325/2022 on the file of the 32nd A.C.M.M., Bangalore, vide Annexure-J to this writ petition and consequently direct the respondent Bank from dispossessing the petitioner from the schedule property considering the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. (ii) Pass any appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems it proper to meet the ends of justice. 3. Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164172024 NC: 2026:KHC:39025 WP No. 7984 of 2024 Crl.Misc.No.6325/2022 and the Court vide order dated:06.03.2024 had allowed the petition. The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The law is also well settled that a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS that the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164172024 NC: 2026:KHC:39025 WP No. 7984 of 2024 Act and exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of the 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 great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise discretionary power under writ jurisdiction. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13