JUDGMENT

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. Heard Sri K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hanumantha Rao Bachina, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ancha Pandu Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 21/10/2023 passed in S.A.No.367 of 2023 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short, DRT), Visakhapatnam.

3. The S.A.No.367 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner against the measure taken under Sec. 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, the Act 2002).

4. The said S.A has been dismissed by DRT after contest.

5. An objection has been raised by the learned counsels for the respondents that the petitioner has got equally efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, but still the writ petition can be maintained against the order of the DRT. He submits that the petitioner's specific plea taken before the DRT that the valuation of the property put to auction was not