ORDER : I.A. No. 4266 of 2024 This I.A. has been filed to amend paragraph 1 and prayer portion of the writ petition and other paragraphs. 2. By filing this interlocutory application, the petitioner has pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has come to know that the Recovery Officer, DRT vide order dated 03.04.2024, had directed all the Principal Officers, Chairman, Managing Director, and the CEO of all the Banks in the territory of, as per the list attached therein by the certificate holder Bank to attach all the accounts in the name of M/s Arogyam Hospital & Diagonistic Research Centre and Dr. Hari Prasad or any proprietorship concern including the lockers either run single or jointly with any other persons in the Banks. Further, a direction has been given to the Income Tax Department to file the details of bank accounts and Credit Cards and Debit Card transaction, form 26As & ITRs for the past year associated with the certificate Debter i.e. M/s Arogyam Hospital & Diagonistic Research Centre and Dr. Hari Prasad. A further direction has been given to the N.S.D.L./C.D.S.L. to file the details of the DEMAT account and the Bank account associated with the aforesaid M/s Arogyam Hospital & Diagonistic Research Centre and Dr. Hari Prasad and in the event of any DEMAT Account, found in the name of the aforesaid PAN card holders to freeze the same and file the details of share with this forum. Further direction was given to all the Post Office and the Insurance Companies to freeze the Bank Account. 3. In this interlocutory application, only the aforesaid amendment is sought for in the main writ petition. Further direction was given to all the Post Office and the Insurance Companies to freeze the Bank Account. 3. In this interlocutory application, only the aforesaid amendment is sought for in the main writ petition. So far as the main writ petition is concerned, the prayer therein made by the petitioner is as follows:- “i. For issuance of appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/directions or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to transfer the property of petitioner, which has been sold ex-parte in the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the Case of Recovery Certificate No. 410 of 2016, for which the petitioner is willing to pay the Bank of Baroda the amount which the petitioner owe to the Bank of Baroda of his share, Learned Recovery Officer without following process of law passed an order dated 01.08.2022 extending the date the date of e-auction which was failed on 30.07.2022 and suomotu without any valuation decreased the reserve price from Rs.1.89 Crores to Rs.1.75 Crores, that the petitioner also preferred JHALSA for redressal of his grievance wherein Member Secretary of JHALSA referred this matter before DALSA Jamshedpur were Secretary DALSA Jamshedpur, tried to Resolve this matter by giving the Bank offer 1.40 Crore which was turned down Bank, and Bank has claimed the mortgaged property of the value is Rs.2.64 crore way back in in 2017 before DALSA. To utter sock & surprise mortgaged property has now sold at far below the current Market Value by Recovery Officer DRT, moreover in the auction only single bidder had participated in the bid, through the order of Recovery Officer passed in Recovery Certificate Case No. 410 of 2016 has been stayed by order passed by Presiding officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal passed vide M.A. no. 41 of 2023 dated 08.09.2023. ii. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/directions or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to cancel the Certificate of sale of immovable of the property of Petitioner to the Pradip Kumar Didwania and Ritu Kumari Agarwal (Auction Purchaser) who has been declared as the purchaser in the auction sale conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, for recovery of the Decreetal amount of Rs.1,62,46,011.00 (Rupees One Crores Sixty Two Lakh Forty Six Thousand and Eleven Only) and the property of the petitioner was sold at price of Rs.1,75,00,000/-(Rupees One Crores Seventy Five Lacs only).” 4. Thus, it is clear that in the main writ petition, the petitioner has only made a prayer to re-convey the asset of the petitioner, which was auction sold, as he is interested in paying back his part of the entire amount. 5. From the main writ petition it is clear that the auction sale has already taken place and the sale has been confirmed. Now the petitioner wants to amend the writ petition adding the following prayers, which is there in the interlocutory application:- “(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the order passed by the, Recovery Officer DRT vide order dated 03.04.2024 whereby the Recovery officer has given following direction to a. All the Principal Officers/chairman & managing Director/CEO of all the Banks in the territory of, as per the list attached by the certificate holder Bank, are hereby directed to attach all the accounts in the name of M/s Arogyam Hospital & Diagonistic Research Centre and Dr. Hari Prasad or any Proprietorship concern including lockers, either single or Jointly with any other person (s) held with your bank, along with copy of account statement in respect of all accounts. b. The concerned officer of Income Tax Department is directed to file the details of bank Accounts, Credit Card and Debit Card with the certificate Debter. Arogyam Hospital & Diagonistic Research Centre and Dr. Hari Prasad c. The concerned officer of NSDL/CDSL is directed to file the details of the DEMAT account and Bank Account of any nature associated with the certificate debtor Arogyam Hospital & Diagonistic Research Centre and Dr. Hari Prasad in the event of any DEMAT account and/or/any bank account in the name of aforesaid PAN Card holders, NSDL/CDSL is further directed to freeze the account and file the details of the shares with this forum. d. To all post office and insurance companies. In consequence thereafter all the Bank Account of the petitioner must be defreeze with immediate effect.” 6. If this interlocutory application is allowed, the nature of the entire writ application will change. Any amendment which changes the entire nature of the writ application cannot be allowed. d. To all post office and insurance companies. In consequence thereafter all the Bank Account of the petitioner must be defreeze with immediate effect.” 6. If this interlocutory application is allowed, the nature of the entire writ application will change. Any amendment which changes the entire nature of the writ application cannot be allowed. The subsequent development which the petitioner wants to bring on record by filing an amendment application is a separate cause of action, for which the petitioner can avail separate remedy, but not by amending the instant writ application. 7. Since the entire nature of the writ application will change, I am not inclined to allow this interlocutory application. This interlocutory application is dismissed. W.P. (C) No. 5433 of 2023 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In this writ application, the petitioner has made the following prayers:- “i. For issuance of appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/directions or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to transfer the property of petitioner, which has been sold ex-parte in the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the Case of Recovery Certificate No. 410 of 2016, for which the petitioner is willing to pay the Bank of Baroda the amount which the petitioner owe to the Bank of Baroda of his share, Learned Recovery Officer without following process of law passed an order dated 01.08.2022 extending the date the date of e-auction which was failed on 30.07.2022 and suomotu without any valuation decreased the reserve price from Rs.1.89 Crores to Rs.1.75 Crores, that the petitioner also preferred JHALSA for redressal of his grievance wherein Member Secretary of JHALSA referred this matter before DALSA Jamshedpur were Secretary DALSA Jamshedpur, tried to Resolve this matter by giving the Bank the offer 1.40 Crore which was turned down Bank, and Bank has claimed the mortgaged property of the value is Rs.2.64 crore way back in in 2017 before DALSA. To utter sock & surprise mortgaged property has now sold at far below the current Market Value by Recovery Officer DRT, moreover in the auction only single bidder had participated in the bid, through the order of Recovery Officer passed in Recovery Certificate Case No. 410 of 2016 has been stayed by order passed by Presiding officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal passed vide M.A. no. 41 of 2023 dated 08.09.2023. ii. 41 of 2023 dated 08.09.2023. ii. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/directions or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to cancel the Certificate of sale of immovable of the property of Petitioner to the Pradip Kumar Didwania and Ritu Kumari Agarwal (Auction Purchaser) who has been declared as the purchaser in the auction sale conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, for recovery of the Decreetal amount of Rs.1,62,46,011.00 (Rupees One Crores Sixty Two Lakh Forty Six Thousand and Eleven Only) and the property of the petitioner was sold at price of Rs.1,75,00,000/-(Rupees One Crores Seventy Five Lacs only).” 10. Admittedly, the secured asset of the petitioner has been auction sold, as the outstanding dues of the Bank were not recovered. In fact, the sale has also been confirmed. 11. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of auction sale on any ground, he should have approached the appropriate Forum, rather than rushing to this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 has held as follows:- “43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily 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. In our view, 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 remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” 44. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu & Ors, (2023) 2 SCC 168 in paragraph 36 has held as under:- “36. In the instant case, although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of pre-deposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the 2002 Act.” 14. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the 2002 Act.” 14. This Court in the case of Shree Radha Ballav Gas Station and Another v. Union Bank of India and Others, (2018) SCC Online (Jhar) 2732, in para 14 has held as under:- “14. Further in the said judgment itself, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but a word of caution has been put in paragraph 45 of the judgment wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision etc. and the particular legislation contains detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.” 15. Similarly in the said judgment, in paragraph 17, this Court has held that the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act of 1993 is a self-contained code containing provisions for filing an appeal by the aggrieved party and the procedure is therein. It is necessary to quote paragraph 17, which reads thus:- “17. As observed earlier, the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is a self-contained code containing provisions for filing an appeal by the aggrieved party and upon filing of such appeal, the appellate tribunal can set aside, modify or even vary the order appealed against. This Court feels that in this case, where a decision has to be arrived at after going through the entire lower court records and the evidence needs re-appraising, the appellate forum is the only remedy which should have been availed by the petitioner at this stage. This Court cannot sit in an appeal while deciding the correctness of the final order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal nor can reappraise the evidence. On the basis of some of the documents annexed with this writ application, the claim of the petitioners and its rebuttal by the respondents, cannot be decided. This Court cannot sit in an appeal while deciding the correctness of the final order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal nor can reappraise the evidence. On the basis of some of the documents annexed with this writ application, the claim of the petitioners and its rebuttal by the respondents, cannot be decided. This is a case where all the pleadings, evidences and the documents have to be scrutinized. It is not a case where the Debts Recovery Tribunal has got no jurisdiction either to entertain the application of the Bank or to pass a final order.” 16. In this case also, the relief which the petitioner is seeking for, can be sought for by filing an appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Forum and the petitioner, if so advised may take the recourse of alternative remedy, which is available to the petitioner, if not availed, which will be considered as per its own merits. The Respondents will be at liberty to take all the objections including the points of limitation. 17. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is dismissed.