HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 487 of 2009 (M/S) Kuldeep Bhandari …. Petitioner .. Versus Punjab National Bank and another … Respondents Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 2nd April, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court in the writ jurisdiction as the petitioner is challenging recovery notice given to him under Section 13 (2) of the Act. At this stage, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that there is an urgency in the matter inasmuch as he apprehends that his restaurant/shop of which possession has been taken by the respondent-Bank, may be auctioned. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank admits that the possession of the restaurant/shop has already been taken. In such an event, it is directed that till a period of one month from today, the respondent-Bank will not initiate any proceedings for auctioning of the restaurant/shop of the petitioner. This time is only given in order to enable the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The fact that such a relief has been granted to the petitioner will in no manner prejudice the case of the respondent-Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 2 With these directions, writ petition is disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 2.4.2009 Avneet