ORDER

Shukla, J:-- 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.11.2025 passed in Securitisation Application No.1082/2025. The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.45070 of 2025 seeking a direction to the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad to hear S.A. No.1082/2025. The Court passed the following order:

"The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Presiding Officer, DRT Allahabad to hear Securitization Application (SA) No.1082/2025, urgently.

It is stated that the auction is scheduled to take place on 25.11.2025 and, therefore, the same be stayed till the decision on the S.A No.1082/2025.

Counsel for the writ petitioner argued that his appeal is pending before the DRT, Allahabad and the appeal has already been heard on the point of waiver on 6.10.2025 but till this date the judgment has not been pronounced. He submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, a fresh notice has been issued and as per the notice, the auction is scheduled to take place on 25.11.2025 against which he has filed S.A No.1082/2025 which is pending before DRT, Jabalpur. He further argued that the jurisdiction of the DRT, Jabalpur has been temporarily given to DRT, Allahabad and the DRT, Allahabad is taking up the matter of DRT, Jabalpur only for one hour through VC and therefore, hearing may not be possible.

Counsel for the respondent/petitioner submitted that he is ready to file reply in the pending S.A and the pending S.A may be directed to be placed before the DRT on 24.12.2025 by preponing the date fixed on 17.12.2025.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Registrar of DRT, Jabalpur to place the matter before DRT, Allahabad on 24.11.2025. Before the said date, the respondent/Bank shall file reply. Till, the prayer for interim relief is considered by the DRT, Allahabad, it is directed that the sale certificate shall not be issued in respect of the property in question."

2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that thereafter the reply was filed and the DRT dismissed the application mainly on the ground that against the judgment dated 10.7.2025, the appellant has already filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and since the notices have been issued on the same ground has already been rejected, therefore, he cannot decide the matter and passed the impugned order rejecting the application for interim relief and fixed the matter after completion of pleadings on 20.1.2026.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that against the order dated 10.7.2025, an appeal has already been preferred before the DRAT, Allahabad which has been heard on the question of waiver and reserved for order, but till this date, the order has not been passed by the DRAT, Allahabad and thus, the petitioner has no remedy, but to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & others, (2010) 8 SCC 110, ICICI Bank Ltd. and others v. Umakant Mohapatra and others, (2019) 13 SCC 497, PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others, (2024) 6 SCC 579 and South Indian Bank Ltd. and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, (2023) 17 SCC 311.

5. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner relied on a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others, SLP (C) No.8867/2022, where the Hon'ble apex Court has carv