- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010648462025 NC: 2026:KHC:47115 WP No. 30268 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 30268 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PANJU ALIAS PUNJAM, S/O. LATE PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH 'A' CROSS, NAVODAYA NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SANDHYA U. PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BENGALURU CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS, AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER, MR. C.N.APPAJAIAH, NO.3, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMRAJAPET, BENGALURU-560018. 2. SRI. FAIZAN SHARIFF, S/O. SRI. IYAZ SHARIFF, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, THIMMAPPA REDDY LAYOUT, HULIMAVU, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560076. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010648462025 NC: 2026:KHC:47115 WP No. 30268 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt.Sandhya U.Prabhu., counsel for the petitioner appeared through video conferencing. 2. The sale certificate dated:28.05.2025 is called into question in this writ petition on several grounds as setout in the memorandum of writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. The authorized officer of the Bank had issued sale certificate on 28.05.2025. The sale certificate cannot be questioned by invoking writ jurisdiction, as there is a statutory alternate remedy of approaching the Tribunal. It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010648462025 NC: 2026:KHC:47115 WP No. 30268 of 2025 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. Hence, I decline to exercise discretionary power under writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits. 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 MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9