Writ petition under Article 226 (GM-DRT) by two petitioners seeking certiorari to quash the E-auction sale notice dated 29.04.2026 issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd. (Annexures A and B) and mandamus directing the bank to afford a One Time Settlement Scheme with reasonable extension of time. Held: a demand/E-auction sale notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition; the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate such lis, so litigants are not remediless. Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures — where a statute creates a right or liability and prescribes the remedy, resort must first be had to that statutory remedy, and a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. Relying on the Apex Court's observation in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others that High Courts ignoring DRT/SARFAESI remedies cause serious adverse impact on banks' recovery rights, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits; interim order(s), if any, stood discharged and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
