JUDGMENT Muralee Krishna, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28510 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing that writ petition. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, in the year 2015, the appellant’s wife, Mrs. Princy, as borrower, along with the appellant’s father, Late Daniel Varghese, as guarantor, availed a credit facility of ?75 lakhs from Canara Bank, Perumbavoor Branch (‘the Bank’ in short) for the purpose of operating a petroleum outlet under the name and style of M/s Vandanathil Petroleum, which is a sole proprietorship concern. As security for the said loan, Late Daniel Varghese had mortgaged 1.16 acres of land with all improvements in Re. Sy. No-112/1, situated at Arackappady village, in Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam District. But due to a huge financial crisis, there occurred a default in payment of the credit facility, and the account of appellant’s wife turned Non Performing Asset (‘NPA’ in short), and the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (‘ SARFAESI ACT ’ in short), against the appellant’s wife and the property owned by the guarantor, which was later inherited by his legal heirs. The appellant has filed Securitisation Application as S.A.No.479/2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), under Section 17 of the SARFAESI ACT , 2002, challenging all actions taken by the Bank, including Exhibit P1 possession notice dated 08.07.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in M.C.No.368 of 2025 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The Tribunal adjourned the matter to 08.08.2025 to enable the Bank to file a counter-affidavit, without passing any interim order. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Tribunal to grant an interim stay on the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI ACT , the appellant filed an appeal along with the stay petition, delay condonation petition and urgent petition on 30.07.2025 under Section 18 of the SARFAESI ACT , 2002, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (‘DRAT’ in short). The diary number of the appeal is 1516 of 2025. Claiming that the appellant and his family are in imminent danger of being displaced from their residence pending the appeal before the DRAT. The diary number of the appeal is 1516 of 2025. Claiming that the appellant and his family are in imminent danger of being displaced from their residence pending the appeal before the DRAT. Therefore, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P1. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to maintain the status quo on the scheduled property till any orders are passed in the petition for waiver and stay are passed in the Appeal filed by the petitioner, temporally numbered as Diary no. 1516 of 2025, on the files of the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai or till final order is passed in I.A no. 2774 of 2025 in SA no. 479 of 2025 and for a reasonable time thereafter for availing appeal remedy if warranted”. 3. By the judgment dated 12.08.2025 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that judgment read thus: “2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.32913/2022, which was dismissed by judgment dated 08.10.2024, rejecting the challenge against the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in RA(S.A.) No.153/2018 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 3. The petitioner had preferred W.A. No. 1893/2024, in which there was a direction to pay 25% of the liability by way of an interim order dated 11.02.2025, but noting that the same was also not complied with, the Writ Appeal was dismissed. 4. The present writ petition challenges Ext.P1, the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The remedy of the petitioner against the actions of the secured creditor is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI ACT . I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition, and the same will stand dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the present writ appeal wherein it is contended that the proceedings initiated by the Bank pursuant to Ext.P1 notice dated 08.07.2025 issued by the Advocate Commisisoner in M.C No.368 of 2025 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, is illegal in view of the pendency of the matter before the DRAT. The learned Single Judge failed to consider this aspect while dismissing the writ petition. If the Bank takes possession of the property prior to the hearing of the appeal before the DRAT, the entire proceedings and appeal will become infructuous. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that at least an order of status quo may be granted by this Court by interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, till the matter is taken up by the DRAT. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the writ petition filed against the SARFAESI proceedings by the appellant itself is not maintainable, and hence the request for relief against the proceedings initiated by the Bank till the matter is taken up by the DRAT is also not entertainable. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and hence no interference is warranted by this Court. 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 , by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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. (M/s.) 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 impugned judgment, we notice that earlier the appellant had filed another writ petition, viz., W.P.(C)No.32913 of 2022 before this Court which was dismissed by the judgment dated 08.10.2024, rejecting the challenge against the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in R.A.(S.A) No.153 of 2018 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Against that judgment, the appellant preferred W.A.No. 1893 of 2024, in which there was a direction by way of an interim order dated 11.02.2025 to pay 25% of the liability. But the said direction was not complied by the appellant, and that writ appeal was ended in dismissal. Challenging Ext.P1 notice dated 08.07.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in M.C. No.368 of 2025, which is a proceeding initiated by the bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI ACT , the appellant already moved the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the non-grant of interim relief by the Tribunal, the appellant approached the DRAT with an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI ACT , and the same is pending consideration with Diary No.1516 of 2025. Alleging delay in considering that appeal, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting that the remedy of the appellant against the actions of the secured creditor is to approach the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI ACT , which he has already resorted to. 14. From the pleadings and materials on record, we do 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. In the instant case, the appellant has approached the Tribunal, and the matter is pending consideration before the Tribunal as well as before the DRAT, since the appellant moved the DRAT with a grievance of non-granting of interim relief by the Tribunal. 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.