Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, in S.A.No.71 of 2007, dated 8. 2009. 2. From the records it is apparent that O.A.No.1085 of 1998 has been filed by the respondent Bank for recovery of a sum payable by the petitioner in respect of the loan availed by him and further that Section 13(4) notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, was issued and the property was brought to action and the respondent Bank has chosen a successful bidder. It is further apparent that against the proceedings initiated by the Bank, the petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filling S.A.No.71 of 2007, which by its order 8. 2009 rejected the Appeal, against which the present writ petition is preferred. 3. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court has granted an order of interim subject to deposit the half of the amount ordered by the Tribunal. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order of this Court has been complied with and he further stated that the auction has not been confirmed. 4. It was brought to the notice of this Court that as against the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal, an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Recovery of Dues due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, by Notification dated 25. 2009, has authorised Mr. Justice Allah Raham, Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, to discharge the functions of Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition under Article petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition under alternative 226 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative remedy of appeal. Since the auction sale has not been confirmed, as stated by the petitioner himself, he can very well ventilate his remedy before the DRAT instead of approaching this Court by way of writ petition. 5. Since the auction sale has not been confirmed, as stated by the petitioner himself, he can very well ventilate his remedy before the DRAT instead of approaching this Court by way of writ petition. 5. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain these petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.