THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.No.26386 OF 2009 BETWEEN: 1. M/s. Neel Madhav Mining Pvt. Ltd., C/o. G. Ramakrishna, Flat No.25, 4th Floor, Emerald Atrium Apartments, Opp. Waltair Club, Uplands, Visakhapatnam – 530 003, A.P. and others. PETITIONERS And 1. The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India, SSI-Finance Branch, 12-4-32, 1st Vloor, Chandus Plaza, Apsara Road (Present called as Green Park Road) Visakhapatnam, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S. Khadar Mohiddin Counsel for the respondents: N.A. The Court made the following – ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 17.09.2009, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in S.A.No.53 of 2006 dismissing the appeal preferred by them challenging the notices dated 24.06.2003 and 29.09.2004 issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SRFAESI Act). Admittedly, against the very same order, the petitioners availed the alternative remedy of appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. As there was no Presiding Officer at the Appellate Tribunal, Channai, they approached the Appellate Authority at Mumbai. The Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in I.A.No.1399 of 2009 in (S.A) No.790 of 2009 permitted the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- with the Registrar of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, for entertaining the appeal while directing that the auction, which is scheduled to be held today, i.e., on 10.12.2009, shall go on, but confirmation of sale shall be stayed. The Supreme Court in Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokkapatel[1], categorically held that this is a case where there is not only the existence of authority but the writ petitioner actually had availed of that remedy. When the appeal before the Statutory Authority is pending, which is the subject matter of the dispute the writ petition should not have been entertained. In view of the same, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. ___________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _______________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) 10th December, 2009 Js. [1] JT 1995 (1) SC 155 = (1995) 1 SCC 642