Allahabad High Court
SHAHRUKHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that it could not grant the writ and directed the petitioner to seek relief before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act.
Summary
Petitioner Shahrukh filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing a private bank (respondent no.3) to open the seal on his house. The bank contended that the High Court cannot interfere with actions taken under the SARFAESI Act, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. The Court examined the petition and the precedent, noting that the SARFAESI Act provides a specific remedial mechanism and that courts should not intervene in debt‑recovery matters under Article 226. Consequently, the Court declined to grant the writ but directed the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within four weeks, with a stay application, and set timelines for disposal. The petition was therefore consigned to the records.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 against a private bank’s action under the SARFAESI Act.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. bars such interference.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ of Mandamus
- SARFAESI Act
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- Private Bank
- Judicial Review
- Stay Order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17504 of 2026
Shahrukh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Javed Alam, Nasim Uddin
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Javed Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioners have prayed for following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondent no. 3 to open the seal/ lock of the house of petitioner
situated at House No. G-19, Ram Park Extension, Hayachipur, Police
Station Loni, District Ghaiabad."
3. Per contra it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the respondent
financial institution being a private Bank, this Court may not like to
interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in the light of the
judgement in the case of S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 177.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
relief claimed in this petition and also the judgement in the case of S.
Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (supra) in which the Supreme Court
has held that the High Courts should refrain themselves from interfering
in matters of debt liabilities and the consequential action taken by such
financial institutions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short
the 'SARFAESI Act, 2002') by invoking extraordinary jurisdictional
WRIC No. 17504 of 2026
2
power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. In view of the above, we decline to grant indulgence in the matter.
However, we still provide that in the event petitioners apply before the
Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002
within a period of four weeks from today along with stay application and
if he does so, the said application shall be considered after putting the
bank to notice and dispose of the same within a further period of four
weeks thereafter and thereafter securitization application itself shall be
disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period
of three months.
6. Subject to aforesaid liberty, petition stands consigned to records.
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
May 5, 2026
IrfanUddin
Digitally signed by :-
IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…