LAKSHMI JEWELLERS MAIN METRO Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records passed by the second respondent contained in I.A.No.1283 of 2017 in S.A.No.95 of 2013, dated 07.08.2017 and to quash the same.

(2.) The necessary facts which are to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows :

(3.) This writ petition came up for admission on 04.10.2017, where the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised an issue that, by passing the impugned order, the DRT has reviewed its earlier order, dated 18.11.2013 made in I.A.No.1156 of 2013 and such a review in the absence of any apparent error on the face of the record, could not have been possible for the DRT to make it and therefore, in view of the settled proposition of law in this regard as to how and when a review would be possible for law Courts / Tribunals, the power exercised by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order, by which reviewed the earlier order passed by it, dated 18.11.2013, is impermissible and therefore on that context, even though there is an alternative appellate remedy available under the SARFAESI Act to the petitioners, they have not availed the same and approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.