ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri P.S. Rajasekhar and learned counsel for respondents Smt. V. Dyumani.

2. The brief facts of the present writ petition are as under:

2.1. The first Petitioner company-M/s. Rays Technologies Pvt. Ltd. obtained cash credit limit vide Account No. 50378541493 with the first Respondents Bank for a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs. The loan account was operated in the second respondent branch. As petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan, the second respondent bank initiated steps to recover the due amount under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

2.2. On 27.02.2021 the above cash credit account was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). On 12.07.2021, second respondent issued notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demanding a sum of Rs. 68,50,773/- claiming to be the amount due upon declaration of the account as non-performing asset (NPA). On 15.07.2021 and 16.07.2021, the petitioners raised objections under section 13(3A) of the Act, 2002 to second Respondent. On 04.09.2021 and 17.09.2021, the second Respondent vide email sought documents and information from the petitioners regarding the restructuring of the account. The information was submitted to the second Respondent by the petitioners. On 01.11.2021, the second Respondent issued possession notice, filed application before the jurisdictional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, to pass orders to vest possession and the possession of the same was obtained on 01.06.2022.

2.3. On 19.01.2022, the Respondent no. 2 issued notice of intended sale of the said property vide notice under Rules 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. On 06.06.2022 second respondent issued sale notice proposing to conduct sale on 28.06.2022. Sale was conducted and confirmed in favour of the highest bidder (third respondent ) on 16.07.2022 for a sum of Rs. 70,20,000/- and sale certificate was issued. This writ petition is filed praying to issue writ of mandamus and declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 to issue sale certificate in favour of third respondent as arbitrary, illegal and to quash or set aside the same.

3. Against any decision/action taken by the lender bank/financial institution under SARFAESI Act, 2002 to recover loan amount, when secured asset on which secured interest is created by the borrower and guarantor, Section 17 [Application against measures to recover secured debts: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter [may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken....] of the Act, 2002 provides remedy to the aggrieved person before the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It is an effective and efficacious remedy. Whenever an aggrieved person has an effective and efficacious alternative remedy, writ Court does not entertain the writ petition and relegates the aggrieved person to avail the said remedy before knocking the doors of the writ Court. Though, there is no bar to entertain the writ petition even when an alternative remedy is available, writ Court exercises self-imposed restraint. The principles on when to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are well laid down by series of judgments of High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 constitution bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned High Courts from entertaining writ petitions, if statute under which a cause of action arose also created forum for adjudication of disputes, more so, in the form of a duly constituted Tribunal presided by or comprising of legally trained person/ex-judicial officer. The Debts Recovery