1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.939 OF 2010 Shri Sachandra Lalji Pandey .. Petitioner Versus State Bank of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.I.S.Agarwal i/b. Worldwide Law Consultant for petitioner CORAM : J.N.PATEL, Actg.C.J. & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th June 2010. P.C.: 1] The petitioner before us is the original defendant in O.A. No.369 of 2002 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai, which was filed by the first respondent bank for recovery of amounts under certain credit facility. 2] The application was placed before the DRT and the Presiding Officer, after framing necessary issues and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence allowed the same and issued recovery certificate in favour of respondent No.1. 2 3] Petitioner who is the principal debtor and borrower, seek to impugn this judgement and recovery certificate in pursuance thereof under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the judgement and order of the learned Presiding Officer can be challenged by filing an appeal under the RDB Act itself. The appeal lies before the DRAT i.e. The Appellate Tribunal. He does not dispute that the Appellate Tribunal is based at Mumbai and is presided over by a Chairperson and the same is functional. He relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court dated 16th September 2008 in Civil Appeal No.5673 of 2008, reported in 2008 (12) SCALE 451. (Mariamma Roy Vs. Indian Bank and Ors.). The learned Counsel further submits that even if there is equally efficacious and alternate remedy available to the petitioner, still, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable if the grievance is that DRT has failed to abide by the principles of natural justice. 4] We are afraid we cannot accede to this contention of petitioner’s Counsel. In the instant case, it is not the grievance of petitioner that the DRT has not issued requisite notice nor was the opportunity to defend the claim of respondent denied by the DRT. The learned Counsel appearing 3 for petitioner invites our attention to certain documents and submits that the contents thereof have been filled in later on and there is interpolation. This plea touches the merits of the claim of first respondent and, therefore, appropriate pleas and grounds can be raised in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 5] The appeal in this case would be a complete and wholly efficacious remedy. In writ jurisdiction, we cannot go into the disputed questions of facts and particularly re-appreciate and re-appraise the oral and documentary evidence. In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgement of the Supreme Court (supra) is clearly distinguishable. The petition is, therefore, dismissed for there being equally efficacious and alternate remedy available under Section 22 of the R.D.B.Act. ( Actg. CHIEF JUSTICE ) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)