P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.

1. Petitioner is a constituent of Canara Bank. It has filed this writ petition with following prayers:

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 22/06/2021 produced as Annexure-J.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to first liquidate the 52 apartments which are in their possession at current market rate and credit the dues to the loan account.

c) Such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The first prayer is for consideration of petitioner's representation as per Annexure-J. It is a letter addressed by a law firm engaged by the petitioner calling upon the respondent bank to give break up of the entire amount from the beginning as reflected in bank's letter dated 16.06.2021 to enable the petitioner to know the heads under which the bank is making claims and to arrive at a fair and transparent settlement.

3. In substance, petitioner is seeking break up of the accounts. Petitioner is a real estate company and borrowed Rs. 64 Crores from Canara Bank for construction of Apartment Complex comprising of 246 residential apartments. A company with such financial exposure shall necessarily have paraphernalia to keep track of its accounts. Further, bankers issue the details of accounts such as pass sheets etc., in routine course. More so, respondent is a Nationalised Bank. If the branch office had not provided account details, petitioner ought to have approached higher officers or Ombudsman. Thus, the prayer clause (a) is misconceived.

4. The second prayer is to direct the bank to liquidate 52 flats which are in bank's possession at current market price and credit the dues to the loan account.

5. It is stated in the representation given by the law firm as per Annexure-J, that S.A. No. 282/2021 is pending before the DRT. It is also stated that the learned Presiding Officer, of DRT has opined that the parties may resolve the dispute without precipitating the matter and the petitioner has submitted its offer of OTS.

6. Thus, the lis between the parties is pending before the appropriate jurisdictional Tribunal namely, the DRT. When parties are agitating the lis before a jurisdictional Tribunal, a writ petition of this nature and particularly, the prayer clause(b) is superfluous. Petitioner has not made out any case of violation of any Constitutional or statutory right warranting consideration of this writ petition. On the other hand, the writ petition of this nature causes enormous loss of judicial time and it is necessary to discourage filing such petitions.

7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) payable by petitioner in the name of the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks from today.

8. The Registrar General shall report compliance of payment of costs.