ORDER : 1. This case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects, as pointed out by the office, is ignored for the present. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 18th January, 2021 issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in Recovery Proceeding no. 250 of 2017, arising out of O.A. Case No. 673 of 2016, for settling a sale proclamation with regard to immovable property as mentioned therein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with his brother Vivek Kumar Singh-husband of the respondent no. 4 is co-purchaser of the property. It is also submitted that, in fact, the respondent no. 4 being the owner of proprietorship firm namely M/s. Devi Concern was the borrower of loan from Punjab National Bank, Lohardaga Branch, Lohardaga and the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the same. He was also not a party in O.A. Case No. 673 of 2016 filed by the bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Presently, the premises in question has been let out to a third party, who is running a school over the same. It is, thus, submitted that the notice dated 18th January, 2021 issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi for settling a sale proclamation with respect to the said immovable property is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. D.K. Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, submits that the petitioner cannot plea ignorance with regard to pendency of the aforesaid O.A. case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, which was finally disposed of on 16th May, 2017, as he himself has stated in the writ petition that he is co-purchaser of the immovable property in question. Otherwise also, if the petitioner had any grievance with regard to Recovery Proceeding No. 250 of 2017 including issuance of warrant of attachment of the property in question as well as the steps being taken by the Recovery Officer for settling the sale proclamation, he should have approached the Recovery Officer, rather than directly filing the present writ petition before this Court. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. If the petitioner was aggrieved with the issuance of notice dated 18th January, 2021 for settling a sale proclamation of the property in question as well as the attachment notice of the same, he should have filed his objection in the recovery proceeding itself. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has repeatedly held that the matters concerning recovery of loan by the bank should not be directly entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of availability of efficacious remedy being available to the borrower or any other person concerned with the property before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 8. Hence, I see no reason to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to work out an alternative recourse for redressal of his grievance.