{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3510 OF 2009 M/s Vilas Trading Company, Thru Proprietor PETITIONER VERSUS The Union of India and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.G.Talhar, Advocate for the petitioner (Absent) Mr.Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India. ....... [CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. and A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 17th July 2009 PER COURT: 1. None for the petitioner even at third call. The dismissal of the petition in default would not serve the ends of justice, as it invariably results in moving application for restoration which creates strain on the registry. Hence, we propose to decide it on its own merits. Having gone through the petition, we found that the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent bank taken under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner has alternate remedy available under the Act. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is rejected since the petitioner did not exhaust alternate remedy. No order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [V.C.DAGA, J.] drp/wp3510-09