WP(C)/16977/2026 of SATYABRATA PRADHAN Vs AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD, BHUBANESWAR on 23 June 2026

ORDER

23.06.2026

01. A defaulting borrower having suffered an order dated 28.01.2026 at the hands of the District Magistrate & Collector, Puri under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court against the coercive actions.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner- borrower submits that the housing loan is a sum of ₹18,72,428/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Seventy-Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Eight) only taken on 31.03.2023. The repayment period being 25 years 3 months, reckoned after five (5) months of availment, and that the initial monthly instalment was fixed at the rate of ₹25,406/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Four Hundred Six) only that later came to be raised to ₹25,958/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-eight) only. He also tells us that the instalments accruing due were paid from 10.08.2023 to 08.02.2025 in all amounting to ₹3,33,008/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-three Thousand Eight) only. Thereafter, the instalments having not been served, the coercive action of the Bank resulted into obtainment of Section 14 order now put in challenge before us.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the Petitioner has got an alternate and equally efficacious remedy, if not more, as provided under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. We also notice that though the Section 14 order was made on 28.01.2026, a copy of that was obtained by the Petitioner under RTI only on 16.04.2026. Therefore, apparently the challenge can be lead to the said order even now, the limitation period having not expired.

4. Despite vociferous submissions of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-borrower, we are not impressed that we should undertake a deeper examination of the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 handed by the Collector under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, no extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated either, for taking a deviant route into. It has long been settled by the Apex Court decisions that ordinarily, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when statutory remedy of the kind does avail to the aggrieved. Subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the Petitioner does not fit.

In the above circumstances, this Petition is disposed off, reserving liberty to the Petitioner to avail the remedy at the hands of the DRT as provided under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. To facilitate availment of the said remedy, the parties are directed not to precipitate the matter for a period of two(2) weeks. The DRT while treating the proceedings, now in contemplation, shall not be influenced even in the least by what we have observed hereinabove. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Opposite Party-Bank for reference immediately by Speed Post.

(Krishna S. Dixit)

Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

AK Pradhan/Priyanka Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYANKA BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2026 18:25:27 Signature Not Verified