JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - Petitioner took a loan in the shape of Cash-Credit Limit, amounting to Rs. 6 crore from Kurmanchal Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd., Branch Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Since there has been a default on the part of petitioner, in repayment of the loan, therefore, the respondent-Bank has taken steps for recovery of the outstanding amount by invoking provision of SARFAESI Act, 2002. 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the sale-notice dated 23.11.2021. Perusal of the sale-notice reveals that the auction sale of the secured asset is schedule to be held on 30.12.2021. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no notice under Rules 8 (6) and 9 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 has been served upon the petitioner, therefore, sale-notice is bad. He further submits that value of the property was assessed by the Bank as Rs. 7.40 crore, in the year 2017, when loan was sanctioned, however, now value of the same property is assessed as Rs. 4.40 crore, which is less by Rs. 3 crore. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India, secured assets have to be sold through E-auction, but in the present case physical auction is scheduled to be held. 6. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, therefore, this writ petition would not be maintainable. He further submits that approved valuer have assessed realizable value of the secured assets as Rs. 4.40 crore, therefore, grievance raised by the petitioner regarding valuation of the secured assets is without any substance. He further submits that as per Rule 8 (5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the secured assets can be sold through E-auction as well as public auction. 7. There is no dispute that petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is also not in dispute that Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is non-functional for want of Presiding Officer. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the Presiding Officer in the said Tribunal is likely to be appointed within three weeks. He further submits that as of now, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow has been authorized to hear the cases cognizable by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the Presiding Officer in the said Tribunal is likely to be appointed within three weeks. He further submits that as of now, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow has been authorized to hear the cases cognizable by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun. 9. Since Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is lying vacant, therefore, petitioner cannot be left remediless and he cannot be forced to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow at this stage, when his assets are going to be sold through public auction. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would file securitization application before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun positively within two weeks. Therefore, it is provided that for a period of four weeks or till disposal of interim relief application filed by the petitioner before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, whichever is earlier, the sale of the secured asset, if made, shall not be confirmed. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.