THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.21602 of 2009 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioner states his father late B. Seshaiah had executed a registered will deed dated 01.09.1986 during his life time bequeathing the property in question to himself and his younger brother B. Srinivas. He states that the second respondent by forging a document given the said property to the first respondent-Andhra Bank towards collateral security and obtained loan. He made a representation to the first respondent on 16.10.2008 enclosing the sale deed, will deed, death certificate and also the earlier complaints made to the police. Without considering the representation and without lodging a complaint against the second respondent, the first respondent Bank has proceeded with the auction of the property of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in selling the property in question in public auction. 2. On 14.10.2011, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings. The first respondent filed counter stating that the sale deed submitted to the Bank as collateral security in connection with the loan obtained by the second respondent is a genuine one. It is stated that the Bank filed O.A.No.42 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same was allowed on 10.09.2009 and accordingly, recovery certificate was issued and the Bank has taken physical possession of the property in question on 17.09.2008 under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Bank. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010, dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 5. In the instant case, certain disputed questions of fact viz., the petitioner is neither a borrower nor guarantor of the said loan and third party had mortgaged the property in question with the first respondent Bank by creating a forged document, are involved, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since there is an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, without going into the merits of the matter, we reserve liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act, which shall be filed by him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the interim order passed by this Court shall operate. 6. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:05.07.2011 sj