THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3570 of 2010 Dated:10.08.2010 Between: N.Anjali Devi .. Petitioner And The Authorised Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, Regional Officer, Tirupathi and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3570 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing paper publication dated 27.01.2010 for sale of premises in Plot No.43, Old Door No.26-4-1157, New Door No.26-4-1794, house with open space, situated at Kotnuru Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is an agreement holder of the property in question, which is mortgaged to a bank. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable, since the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for redressal of her grievance. Time and again, the Supreme Court also held that the High Courts, while passing orders in matters of this nature, must exercise its jurisdiction with greater caution, care and circumspection. In this context, reference is made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others (Civil Appeal dated 26.07.2010 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.10145 of 2010), wherein it was held that the High Courts cannot exercise their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when there is a statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: 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 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. Having regard to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, as the matter pertains to a financial institution, and since the petitioner has a statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, without going into the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue her remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of her grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 10.08.2010 KH