Prashant Pratap Ahir and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the District Magistrate Pune and Ors.

(Annexure B at Page 27 of the Review Petition) was not available with the Review Petitioner and was subsequently obtained. She has submitted that from the impugned order, it is apparent that the Respondent – Bank has not come up with the Statement of Account regarding the exact amount that is due and payable by the Review Petitioner who was Appellant therein and the threshold amount that was required to be determined for the payment of pre-deposit.

¶26

She has submitted that there are fundamental jurisdictional issues which arise, which only the Writ Court can go into and not the DRT/DRAT. She has accordingly submitted that the Order under review dated 1^st December, 2025 requires to be recalled.

¶27

Ms. Pandey has further submitted that the challenge in the Petition which had been disposed of was with regard to the validity of the measures taken by the Respondent – Bank, in particular the measures under Sections 13(3A), 13(4) and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) as well as the relevant DRT Rules. She has submitted that though this Court is the appropriate Court to consider this challenge, the Review

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

Order dated 29 January, 2026

¶30

C-RPW 6.2026 in WP 12491.2025.doc Prashant Pratap Ahir Vs. State of Maha.& Ors.,

¶31

Petitioner has been relegated to the DRT.

¶32

We have considered the submissions of the Review Petitioner. By the said order dated 1^st December, 2025 we have taken a similar view as that taken by the predecessor Bench in the prior Writ Petition No.9455 of 2021 filed by the Review Petitioner. In that Petition too, the Review Petitioner had sought invocation of Writ Jurisdiction by challenging the measures taken by the Respondent – Bank under the SARFAESI Act, in particular the measures under Section 14 thereof. The predecessor Bench had taken a view that the Review Petitioner is having an alternate remedy and had relegated the Review Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy before the DRT.

¶33

The Review Petitioner has infact availed of the alternate remedy by filing securitisation application. However, the application was filed beyond the prescribed time in view of which the delay condonation application preferred by the Review Petitioner came to be rejected by the DRT. It is from this order that the Review Petitioner filed an Appeal before the DRAT, and the impugned Order came to be passed.

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

Order dated 29 January, 2026

¶36

C-RPW 6.2026 in WP 12491.2025.doc Prashant Pratap Ahir Vs. State of Maha.& Ors.,

¶37