IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.761 of 2011 M/S Hi Tech Auto Mobiles a proprietorship firm situated at N.H.-19, Gandhi Setu Path, Hajipur through its proprietor Amod Kumar son of Sri Ram Kailash Singh, resident of village Bagmusa, PS Hajipur, District Vaishali .......Appellant Versus 1. The Union Bank Of India, Head Office Union Bank Bhawan, 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Mumbai, 400021 through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director 2. The Assistant General Manager, Nodal Regional Office, Union Bank of India, Nasheman, Majharul Haque Path, Patna 3. The Chief Manager –cum- Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Nasheman, Majharul Haque Path, Patna 4. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Hajipur Branch, District, Vaishali .........Respondents --------------- 2 12-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents- Bank. 2. There is no dispute with the observations of the writ court in paragraph 18 to the effect that the action taken by the respondents u/s 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) is not final and the petitioner has got an adequate and efficacious remedy available in terms of section 17 of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the writ court had to refuse exercise of writ jurisdiction on the aforesaid ground, no discussion should have been made of the materials on record or the 2 arguments advanced on behalf of parties. 4. We do not agree with the aforesaid submission. The writ court could not have recorded a bald finding in paragraph 14 that the main issue raised on behalf of petitioner raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by the writ court without setting out the pleadings and arguments of the parties. 5. We clarify, in the interest of justice, that the discussion made in the judgement under appeal do not amount to any final opinion or finding expressed by the writ court on the issues raised by the appellant/ petitioner that the mortgaged land is still an agricultural land and, therefore, exempted from the proceedings under the Act in view of section 31 (i) of the Act. This issue has to be decided on the basis of evidence and materials which may be brought on record by the parties or which the authorities under the Act may require for the purpose of deciding the issue. 6. The second contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that a further notice after the disposal of the writ petition has been issued against the appellant 3 showing the intention to auction sale all the mortgaged lands. 7. We are not persuaded to exercise writ jurisdiction in respect of such subsequent development because such development can always be raised before the authorities under the Act before invoking writ jurisdiction. 8. From the submissions advanced on behalf of appellant, it appears that some sort of grievance has developed because the writ court did not dismiss the writ petition at the threshold on account of availability of statutory remedy. 9. We are of the view that such a grievance may be genuine and if in similar matters the writ court finds availability of statutory alternative remedy, unless there be very exceptional circumstances such as challenge to provision of law etc., the writ petitioner must be relegated to avail the statutory alternative remedy. The provisions in the Act constitute a scheme and ordinarily it is not desirable that the said scheme be interrupted at the interlocutory stage which can only 4 delay the realization of the bank’s dues, in accordance with law and, thus, frustrate the very purpose of the Act. 10. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the appellant that it may avail the statutory remedy available under the Act. AFR/BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)