WP/8877/2026 of Thotakura Srinivas Rajasekhar, Vs The Union of India on 5 April 2026

1. THOTAKURA SRINIVAS RAJASEKHAR, S/O T. SRIRAMA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O DOOR No.54-16-1/7C, VETERINARY COLONY, ROAD NO.1, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA - 520008.

2. THOTAKURA SUSMITHA, W/O THOTAKURA SRINIVAS RAJASEKHAR, AGED ABOUT

YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O DOOR No.54-16-1/7C, VETERINARY COLONY, ROAD NO.1, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA - 520008.

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 110001.

2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, 6, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001.

3. THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, APPOINTED IN Crl.M.P.No.317/2026, COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 520001.

4. BANK OF INDIA, REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REGISTERED OFFICE STAR HOUSE, C-5, “G” BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051, BRANCH OFFICE AT D.NO. 27-21-39, MAA NANNA NILAYAM, KALESARA RAO ROAD,

GOVERNOPET, VIJAYAWADA-520002.

5. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present:- Mr. R. Krishna Murthy, Advocate and

Mr. D. Taraka Prasad, Advocate for petitioners. ****** LISA GILL,J.

Admittedly, petitioners have filed S.A.No.192 of 2026 challenging proceedings undertaken by respondent-Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “SARFAESI Act”), including proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Above S.A. is admittedly pending before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are constrained to file present writ petition because the matter before learned DRT is pending for 28.05.2026, along with their application seeking interim relief. In the meantime, petitioners apprehend that possession of property may be taken in view of vacate notice dated 16.03.2026, issued by Advocate Commissioner, to handover vacant possession within one week.

It is to be noted that S.A.No.192 of 2026, filed by petitioner, is admittedly pending before learned DRT. Petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application(s) before learned DRT, in case of any urgency or emergent situation, as is sought to be projected before us, with complete and proper details, including any application for preponement of hearing, which we are sanguine shall be considered by learned DRT in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners is unable to point out any ground to cause interference in this matter at this juncture, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is to be noted that interference in matters like the present has to be minimal and actuated only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 .

4. Said decision has been reiterated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. And others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 771 and then in PHR Invent Educational Society Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 AIR (SC) 1893 wherein it was held that:- “29. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus:

(i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;

(ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;

(iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and

(iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.

30. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken, itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.

31. Undisputedly, the present case would not come under any of the exceptions as carved out by this Court in the case of ChhabilDass Agarwal (supra).

32. We are therefore of the considered view that the High Court has grossly erred in entertaining and allowing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

33. While dismissing the writ petition, we will have to remind the High Courts of the following words of this Court in the case of Satyawati Tondon (supra) since we have come across various matters wherein the High Courts have been entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy: “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.

5. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to petitioners to pursue the matter pending before learned DRT while taking all available pleas besides filing appropriate application as may be required for emergent hearing, in accordance with law. It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter. No order as to costs.

6. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

(LISA GILL) JUDGE

(NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE

Date: 06.04.2026 ANS

HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION NO: 8877/2026

Date: 06.04.2026 ANS