JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition challenging the sale proceedings initiated at Exhibit P6 and for quashing of Exhibit P3 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal [for brevity “DRT”]. Admittedly an appeal was filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [for brevity “DRAT”], which was not prosecuted for reason of the failure of the petitioner to make the deposit as prescribed in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act , 1993 [for brevity “RDDB Act”]. The writ petition hence has to be dismissed on that short ground, especially since the petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the DRT, without availing of the statutory remedy of appeal and having raised the grounds which would require a factual adjudication; which would not be a permissible exercise under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner however would urge this Court to look into the facts, at least to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, on an amendment made to the original writ petition, as to an enquiry being necessitated, on the very serious allegations raised against the action of the Bank. The content