Order The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- (A) For issuance an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for quashing of letter No. SARC/08-09/966 dated 1.12.2008 whereby and whereunder the Respondent NO.2 has directed the Petitioner to handover the physical possession of the mortgaged property given as security in the loan account of the Petitioner inasmuch as the said letter dated 1.12.08 has been issued without issuance of notice under the provision of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (B) For issuance an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) upon the Respondents to unlock the factory premises of the Petitioner's unit which has been forcefully taken over by taking the physical possession by preparing inventory of the movable property and locking the gate of the factory premises on 12.1.09 which has been communicated to the Petitioner vide Letter No. SARC/08-09/1209 Dated 13.1.2009 without following the process of various provisions as contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (C) For issuance an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for declaration that the physical possession of the petitioner's unit vide Letter No. SARC/08-09/1209 dated 13.1.2009 is illegal and without any jurisdiction as much as the entire process of taking over the physical possession of the Petitioner's unit has been done by violating the principles of natural justice and also by violating the statutory provision of Section 13(4) and Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (D) For issuance an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) upon the Respondent No. 1 to provide the calculation of actual dues after adjustment of payments made by the Petitioner from time to time and also after adjusting the security furnished by the Petitioner so that Petitioner could make the payment as per the direction of this Honoble Court. 2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in absence of receipt of notice under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to SERFAESI Act) the entire action of the respondent-Bank for enforcement of the security is illegal and arbitrary. 2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in absence of receipt of notice under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to SERFAESI Act) the entire action of the respondent-Bank for enforcement of the security is illegal and arbitrary. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that taking over of the physical possession by locking the gate of factory premises is also illegal in view of the provision as contained under Section 14 of the SERFAESI Act. His further contention is that the petitioner has deposited sufficient amount in their account and has further promised to pay the entire dues provided some time is given to the petitioner and accordingly the action taking the physical possession of the mortgaged assets was without jurisdiction and arbitrary. 3. The counsel for the respondents has submitted that they have served the notice under Section 13(2) and only subsequent to serving of notice the respondent-Bank invoked Section 13(4) of SERFAESI Act, 2002 on 9.6.2008 for the mortgaged property given as security in the loan account of the petitioner they advised the concerned Administrative Department of the Government authority to provide the bank to take the physical possession of the mortgaged property. 4. I have considered the pleading and argument and accordingly this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon (2004) SCC pg. 311 to support his contention that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 6. I have considered the judgment and observation at paras 82 & 83, which is quoted as under:- "82. We, therefore, subject to what is provided in para 80 above, uphold the validity of the Act and its provisions except that of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, which is declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 83. Before we part with the case, we would like to observe that where a secured creditor has taken action under Section 13(4) of the Act, in such cases it would be open to borrowers to file appeals under Section 17 of the Act within the limitation as prescribed therefore, to be counted with effect from today." 7. 83. Before we part with the case, we would like to observe that where a secured creditor has taken action under Section 13(4) of the Act, in such cases it would be open to borrowers to file appeals under Section 17 of the Act within the limitation as prescribed therefore, to be counted with effect from today." 7. I find that the aforesaid judgment clearly stipulates that the party should approach the statutory appellate authority. The aforesaid judgment declared Section 17(2) of SERFAESI Act as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, now by way of amendment the new schedule has been introduced for filing the statutory Appeal. 8. There are disputed question of facts as to whether notices were served under Section 13(2) as also with regard to the quantum of payment of amount still due and in any case where a secured creditor has taken action under Section 13(4) of the Act appeal is provided under Section 17 of SERFAESI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case at para-83 specifically held so. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.