Bhagwati Prasad, J.—Heard. 2. The present writ petition is filed against the act of the Bank whereby the Bank has resorted to recovery of the secured interest against a person who says that he is the guarantor of the principal borrower. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a guarantor, it is not available for the Bank to proceed against the assets of the guarantor without exhausting its right, liability and claim against the principal borrower. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent per contra submits that in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2002”), the definition of “borrower” is provided in Section 2(f) of the Act of 2002 which is quoted hereinbelow: “borrower” means any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by any bank or financial institution and includes a person who becomes borrower of a securitisation company or reconstruction company consequent upon acquisition by it of any rights or interest of any bank or financial institution in relation to such financial assistance” 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the definition of borrower includes a guarantor and therefore, as and when a reference is made to the term “borrower”, it also includes a guarantor. Therefore, there had been no distinction in borrower or its guarantor as far as powers given to the secured creditor who has been authorised under the Act of 2002 to initiate recovery proceedings. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration and have perused the record. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Bank of Rajasthan vs. Krishna Printers, reported in 2003 (3) CDR Page 2437 (Raj.). The case which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been decided without taking into consideration the provisions of Act of 2002. Therefore, the ratio of this case will not govern the facts of this case. As regards the status of the petitioner, he is admittedly a guarantor but then guarantor has been included in the term “borrower”. As and when reference is made to borrower, guarantor is included in it. Therefore, the ratio of this case will not govern the facts of this case. As regards the status of the petitioner, he is admittedly a guarantor but then guarantor has been included in the term “borrower”. As and when reference is made to borrower, guarantor is included in it. It is the will of the person authorised under the Act of 2002 to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 13 of the Act against the person to whom he thinks fit. Even under Sub-section (11) of Sec. 13 of the Act of 2002, no preferential right has been conferred on the guarantor of the creditor because it says that without prejudice to the rights conferred on the secured creditor under or by this section, secured creditor shall be entitled to proceed against the guarantors. This shows that apart from proceeding against the secured creditor, it can proceed against the guarantor also. That being the position, if the Bank has proceeded against the guarantor, no illegality is seen and is not seen as an action without jurisdiction. The remedy under the Act having not been availed by the petitioner, the writ petition to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. * * * * *