Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Facts:

The appellant, a private limited company engaged in the production of steel, faced financial crises and has its manufacturing unit closed. In the process, the company ran into debts to the banks and other agencies; it has huge arrears of unpaid sales tax, too.

2. As one creditor bank took possession of the appellant's immovable property, the respondent department attached the company's movables-the machinery. In 2010, the third respondent, as a follow up, notified under the Revenue Recovery Act the sale of movables and machinery. Then, the third respondent valued the attached properties at Rs. 85,16,000/-. But the sale could not take place because of the appellant's objections on the valuation of the property. As a matter of further developments, the very assessment by the department fell for consideration before this Court, which directed the department to reassess the tax due. In the parallel debt recovery proceedings, the creditor bank seems to have valued the appellant's movable property including machinery at Rs. 1,09,12,500/-.

3. In view of the earlier aborted sale, the third respondent on 24.05.2016 freshly notified through Ext.P4 the sale of the attached movables and machinery. This time he fixed the value of the attached properties at Rs. 36,16,990/-, much less than the earlier valuation at Rs. 85,16,000/-. It is pertinent that the sales tax arrears to be realised stand at Rs. 1,65,41,651/-.

4. The appellant, once again, approached this Court complaining that the valuation shown by the authorities for the attached machinery is too low. It filed W.P.(C) No.20899 of 2016. This Court, per a learned single Judge, dismissed the Writ Petition through judgment dated 21.6.2016 holding that the petitioner is free to raise all objections before the authority concerned regarding what is said to be the under valuation. Further aggrieved, the appellant has taken this intra-court appeal before us.

Contentions:

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that a creditor bank in its parallel proceedings fixed the value of movables and machinery at more than one crore rupees According to him, the very third respondent earlier fixed the value of the property at about Rs. 85 lakh rupees, but has now brought it down drastically to Rs. 36 lakh rupees-in a matter of 5 years. In sum and substance, his singular contention is that the movable property has been grossly undervalued. Therefore, the third respondent shall not go ahead with the auction unless the property is reappraised by a competent evaluator.

6. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the appellant will have the property valued or appraised at its own expense by a Government panel-engineer. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that the appellant is free to raise its every conceivable objection before the authority concerned. According to him the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, apart from perusing the record.

Issue:

8. The issue is whether the writ remedy is the proper primary redressal mechanism available for the appellant.

Discussion:

9. There is no denying the fact that the appellant might have a grievance that its movable properties sought to be sold by the third respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act were grossly undervalued. It seeks a just remedy. That said, we reckon a perusal of the record does not reveal that the appellant has complained to any of the authorities who have fixed the value of the property or those who have brought the property for sale. Yet it wants a certiorari or a mandamus, as the case may be. To be explicit, we may note that the appellant seeks these reliefs:

i. A writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Ext.P4 and quash the same.

ii. A writ of mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature thereof directing respondent No