JUDGMENT

K.K. Tated, J. - By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner challenges the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by learned District Magistrate, Pune, under section 14(3) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that alternate remedy is not provided against this order before DRT. In support of this contention he relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Harsh Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. And Others, 2014 (4) Mah.L.J. 151. He relies on paragraph 22, 23 and 24 which reads thus:

"22. Subsection (3) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act provides that no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate or any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate done in pursuance of Section 14 shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. The SARFAESI Act, therefore, attaches finality to the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate and this decision cannot be c