Subrata Mukherjee vs Union of India & Ors.

The writ petition assails a notice of sale issued and published by the respondent Bank under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

The petitioner is a borrower. The petitioner has availed of certain credit facilities from the respondent Bank which are now in default. The respondent Bank has taken steps under the 2002 Act to enforce its security interest. In such process, the Bank has proceeded to put its secured asset for sale through auction under the SARFAESI Act. Such sale notice has been served upon the petitioner. The same is dated August 17, 2026 and forms annexure ‘P-5’ to the writ petition at page 33 thereof.

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the sale notice on the ground that the same does not conform to the mandatory time line of thirty days.

As to whether, the sale notice has been published in defiance of any of the provisions of the 2002 Act or not can be very well examined by the statutory forum i.e. relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal.

In any event, it is not in all cases that a notice of thirty days is mandatorily required in SARFAESI sales. If the first sale attempted by the Bank or the secure creditor has failed, the subsequent sale notice can be validly issued, published and affixed maintaining the time gap of fifteen days only.

Be that as it may, if the sale is found to be faulty, the same can be set aside by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The borrower still has time to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and there is no reason for this Court to exercise its highly prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case.

The case at hand does not involve any public law element nor does it fall within any of the well settled exceptions justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court despite availability of alternative remedy.

For all the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is not entertained. This order shall however, not prevent the petitioner from approaching the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law.

Accordingly, WPA 24875 of 2026 stands disposed of. No Costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.