JUDGMENT : MURALEE KRISHNA S., J. 1. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23397 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing that writ petition. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant availed a business loan of Rs.30/- lakhs from the 1 st respondent bank and later renewed it to Rs.40/- lakhs in March 2020. Due to COVID-19 lockdown and ensuing financial crisis, repayments were disrupted, and the account was declared as Non Performing Asset (for short ‘NPA’). On 11.02.2025, the appellant received Ext.P1 letter issued by the respondent Bank granting One Time Settlement Scheme (for short ‘OTS’) facility to the appellant at a total sum of Rs.57,83,160/-. Simultaneously Bank had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the properties mortgaged for loans availed by the appellant. The appellant was then constrained to approach this Court seeking deferment of possession proceeding eliciting procedural violations under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002, (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) by filing W.P.(C) No.11518 of 2025 and the same got disposed of vide Ext.P2 judgment dated 05.06.2025 with directions to pay Rs.5/- lakhs and pursue remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The appellant is ready to pay Rs.5/- lakhs and settle dues within 60 days, if OTS is revived. The appellant submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 17.06.2025 to the 3 rd respondent. Though vide Ext.P4 letter dated 02.04.2025, the 3 rd respondent positively recommended OTS revival to the Bank, no decision has been taken by the Bank. Hence, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 3 rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation dated 17.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 3 rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation dated 17.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to revive and re-consider the OTS facility granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and permit the petitioner to settle the dues under the said OTS scheme; (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order directing the 1 st respondent Bank to adjust the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- contemplated in Ext.P2 judgment towards OTS facility, if revived. (iv) Stay all further coercive proceedings including dispossession proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the loan accounts in question, pending final decision on the OTS.” 3. In the writ petition, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a statement dated 28.06.2025 was filed by the learned Standing Counsel, opposing the relief sought for in the writ petition and producing therewith Annexure R2(a) to R2(e) documents. 4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as said above. Paragraphs 2 to 5 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus: “2. As far as Ext.P1 is concerned, the same was issued on 11.02.2025, granting OTS facility and directing the petitioner to pay the same before 28.02.2025, which admittedly has not been complied with. There cannot be any direction issued by this Court extending the time to comply with the OTS facility. 3. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17428 of 2024, disposed of by Ext.R2(a) judgment on 07.06.2024, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17428 of 2024, the further proceedings by the bank was deferred and the petitioner was directed to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No.11518 of 2025, which was disposed of on 05.06.2025, recording the submission of the Bank, that a total outstanding of more than Rs. 69/- lakhs is due. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No.11518 of 2025, which was disposed of on 05.06.2025, recording the submission of the Bank, that a total outstanding of more than Rs. 69/- lakhs is due. Taking note of the fact that the securitisation application preferred by the petitioner as S.A No.503/2024 was pending and was posted to 11.07.2025, all coercive steps till that day were stayed on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.5/- lakh on or before 30.06.2025. It was further directed that it was open to the petitioner to move to the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking appropriate reliefs. The direction of this Court regarding payment was also not complied with, and the payment was made belatedly on 14.07.2025. 5. This Court had directed the petitioner, even at that stage, to file an appropriate application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the pending securitisation application. Under such circumstances, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition. The petitioner had already approached this Court by filing two writ petitions, which are also based on the same cause of action. Accordingly, I am not inclined to pass any orders in this writ petition, and the same will stand dismissed”. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that by Ext.P4 letter dated 02.04.2025, the 3 rd respondent, Joint Registrar(General Kollam), requested the General Manager to include the appellant in the One Time Settlement Scheme. Without considering the said request, the 1 st respondent is proceeding with the SARFAESI proceedings. Against the SARFAESI proceedings, the appellant has moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the same is pending consideration. But, now the Bank issued a possession notice even after the payment of Rs.5/- Lakhs by the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside, and the relief sought in the writ petition may be granted against the respondents. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the appellant repeatedly filed writ petitions before this Court against the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Bank. The total outstanding as of now is more than Rs.63/- lakhs. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the appellant repeatedly filed writ petitions before this Court against the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Bank. The total outstanding as of now is more than Rs.63/- lakhs. Apart from that, the wife of the appellant also availed a loan of Rs.40/- lakh, and she also failed to make any amount towards that loan account. The Securitisation Application filed by the appellant is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition is not maintainable, and hence no interference is needed on the impugned judgment. 8. Law is well settled regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 9. In Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. 2018 (1) KHC 786 , the Apex Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a writ petition only under exceptional circumstances and that it is a self imposed restraint by the High Court. The four exceptional circumstances such as, where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, were re iterated in paragraph 6 of the said judgment by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603. 10. This position was reiterated by the Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 (4) KLT 29 and after discussing the various judgments on the point as well as the circumstances in which the High Court can interfere with in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, held as under: “Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi - judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute”. 11. In PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, 2024 (3) KHC SN 3 the Apex Court held that it is more than a settled legal position of law that in matters arising out of RDB Act and SARFAESI Act, the High Court should not entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available. 12. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Jasmin K. v. State Bank of India, 2024 (3) KHC 266 reiterated the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments. 13. From the pleadings in the writ petition as well as from the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, we notice that this is the third writ petition filed by the appellant against the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank in respect of a business loan of Rs.40/- lakhs availed by him, which was later converted into NPA due to non-payment of the loan instalments. The first writ petition filed by the appellant was W.P.(C)No.17428 of 2024. Pursuant to the interim order in that writ petition, the appellant remitted an amount of Rs.1/- lakh. Noting the same, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court by Annexure R2(a) judgment dated 07.06.2024, with a direction to defer recovery proceedings for a period of ten days to enable the appellant to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In pursuance of that judgment, the appellant filed S.A.No.503 of 2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Meanwhile, by Annexure R2(b) letter dated 11.02.2025, an OTS facility was offered to the appellant, by virtue of which the appellant had to remit Rs.57,83,160/-. In pursuance of that judgment, the appellant filed S.A.No.503 of 2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Meanwhile, by Annexure R2(b) letter dated 11.02.2025, an OTS facility was offered to the appellant, by virtue of which the appellant had to remit Rs.57,83,160/-. But without availing the facility, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.11518 of 2025, which resulted in Ext.P2 judgment dated 05.06.2025 as mentioned above. In that judgment, the appellant was directed to remit Rs.5/-lakhs on or before 30.06.2025. Subsequently, the appellant submitted a representation dated 17.06.2025, and that representation was disposed of by the Bank on 24.06.2025, and by Annexure R2(c) letter the same was intimated to the appellant. Again, the appellant submitted Annexure R2(e) fresh representation on 27.06.2025 to the Bank. Thereafter, he came up with the third writ petition, viz., W.P.(C) No.23397 of 2025. 14. From the pleadings and materials on record, we did not find a special circumstance as stipulated in Mathew K.C. 2018 (1) KHC 786 that entitles the appellant to approach this Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act by the Bank. 15. Apart from the above, in the instant case, the appellant seeks a further relief by way of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider his request for OTS. The Apex Court in The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor and Ors. v. Meenal Agarwal and Ors. (2023) 2 SCC 805 , while dealing with a question of whether such a direction can be given to the Bank by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , held thus: “5.2 Therefore, as per the guidelines issued, the grant of benefit of OTS Scheme cannot be prayed as a matter of right and the same is subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme. The defaulters who are ineligible under the OTS Scheme are mentioned in clause 2, reproduced hereinabove. A wilful defaulter in repayment of loan and a person who has not paid even a single installment after taking the loan and will not be able to pay the loan will be considered in the category of “defaulter” and shall not be eligible for grant of benefit under the OTS Scheme. Similarly, a person whose account is declared as “NPA” shall also not be eligible. Similarly, a person whose account is declared as “NPA” shall also not be eligible. As per the guidelines, the Bank is required to constitute a Settlement Advisory Committee for the purpose of examining the applications received and thereafter the said Committee has to take a decision after considering whether a defaulter is entitled to the benefit of OTS or not after considering the eligibility as per the OTS Scheme. While making recommendations, the Settlement Advisory Committee has to consider whether efforts have been made to recover the loan amount and the possibility of recovery has been minimized, meaning thereby if there is possibility of recovery of the amount, either by initiating appropriate proceedings or by auctioning the property mortgaged and/or the properties given as a security either by the borrower and/or by guarantor, the application submitted by the borrower for grant of benefit under the OTS Scheme can be rejected.” 16. This position was reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Idukki District Police Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Rasheed A.K. 2025 (4) KHC 44 . Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the judgments referred above, we find that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. The appellant did not make out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment by exercising appellate jurisdiction. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.