Judgment S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Recovery Officer dated 23.5.2014. 2. We have heard Mr. R. Nadanasabapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. F.B. Benjamin George, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy in terms of Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the RDDB&FI Act, 1993. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the very same Officer is going to hear the matter, there is no need for the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and he contended that the petitioner would not get justice. This Court is not inclined to accept the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. An order was passed on 29.2.2002 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai and about 12 years period have lapsed now. It is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy before the Tribunal. Hence, we find that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission itself, after hearing both the parties. 5. Since the original order has been filed by the petitioner along with the registered sale deeds, the Registry is directed to return the same to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after the counsel for the petitioner substituing a certified copy of the same, thereby to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to prepare an appeal as per Section 30 of RDDB&FI Act, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is dismissed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.