JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

2. Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the auction notice published by the respondent Bank (erstwhile SBBJ) for recovery of its loan amount by sale of the secured assets.

3. Mr. Shridhar Mehta, learned counsel representing the respondent Bank on behalf of Dr. Sachin Acharya has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition by relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. vs. Mathew K.C. (Civil Appeal No.1281/2018) decided on 30.01.2018.

4. Shri S.L. Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioner countered this preliminary objection, vehemently urging that the remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not an efficacious alternative remedy so as to justify relegation of the petitioner to approach the Tribunal against the patently illegal auction proceedings. However, upon a perusal of the following observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Authori