ORDER S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—In this case, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 7.8.2012 whereby the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore has dismissed the application filed by the legal representative of defendant No. 2 seeking a direction to the applicant-Bank to settle the case in terms of the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. I have heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. Admittedly, the order impugned is appealable under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. I am of the view that the matter requires factual adjudication. The alternative remedy available to the petitioner is not only adequate but also efficacious in nature. 3. In AIR 2010 SC 3413 , the Apex Court has held that ordinarily the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of Banks and other financial institutions. It has been further held that while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 4. I am of the view that petitioner has to exhaust the alternative remedy available to it in law. before availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, I decline to entertain this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to it in law 5. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to an interim order, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. before availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, I decline to entertain this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to it in law 5. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to an interim order, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs with the first respondent-Bank though it is not liable to pay the said amount. Since the petitioner is permitted to avail the alternative remedy, the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order should be refunded. 6. Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned Counsel for the first respondent opposes for refund of the amount to the petitioner. He submits that the said amount will be accounted for from the date of deposit and it will be adjusted towards the amount due by the petitioner to the Bank. 7. On 15 1.2013, this Court has passed an interim order as under: Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner, in order to show his bonafides, is prepared to deposit Rs. 25.00 lakhs with the first respondent-Bank within a period of four weeks from today. His statement is recorded and accepted. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, as aforementioned, this Court may dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution on the next date of hearing. Issue notice to the first respondent-Bank returnable by 12.2.2013. In addition to the Court's notice, the petitioner is also directed to serve Advocate's notice, either personally or by RPAD/Courier/Speed post/Fax, and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. Notice to state that the petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 8. It is clear that in order to show the bonafides, the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs with the first respondent-Bank. I have already held that the petitioner has to file an appeal challenging the impugned order. Petitioner is also permitted to raise the contention that it is not liable to pay the amount to the Bank. In case the appellate authority finds merit in the said contention, the Bank has to be directed to refund the amount to the petitioner with interest. In the circumstances, the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for refund of the amount is rejected. In case the appellate authority finds merit in the said contention, the Bank has to be directed to refund the amount to the petitioner with interest. In the circumstances, the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for refund of the amount is rejected. All contentions on merit are kept open. In view of dismissal of the writ petition as above, I.A. No. 2/2013 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.