The main legal principle established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the availability of statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

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 correctly made and the same was under-valued. In that regard the reports submitted by the petitioner were also not considered by the DRT.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that to maintain the appeal, the petitioner will have to comply with the requirement of making the pre-deposit as provided by Sec. 18. Consequently the petitioner has approached under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. He placed reliance in the cases of Union of India and others vs. Parashotam Dass, 2023 SCC Online SC 314 and Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603.

9. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

10. Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under:-

"18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.-

(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal [under Sec. 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to an Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal.

[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower:]

[Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent. of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less: Provided also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five per cent. of debt referred to in the second proviso.]

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder."

11. Admittedly the petitioner has got the statutory alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order, under Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Appellate Tribunal.

12. In Parashotam Dass (supra), upon which learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not inhibited and superintendence and control under Article 227 of the Constitution are somewhat distinct from the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

13. Paras 25, 26 of Parashotam Dass (supra), reads as under:-

"25. While we agree with the aforesaid principle, we are unable to appreciate the observations in the case of Major General Shri Kant Sharma, which sought to put an embargo on the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, diluting a very significant provision of the C