ORDER : Dhirendra Mishra, J. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 600 lacs by respondent No. 1/Bank. The overall credit limit was extended to Rs. 767.62 lacs in the year 2006. The petitioner's account became irregular as he failed to pay certain installments of the term loan. Respondent No. 1 served the petitioner with a demand notice of Annexure P/3 on 25-9-2007 threatening to classify its loan account as Non Performing Asset (in short "NPA"), if the due arrears are not paid by 29-9-2007. The demanded sum could not be deposited before the stipulated time or thereafter, the petitioner's account is being treated as NPA w.e.f. 30-9-2007 without making any formal order. The petitioner was served with the impugned notice u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (in short "SARFAESI Act") vide Annexure P/4 on 15-11-2007. Thereafter, possession notice dated 23-1-2008 (Annexure P/5) u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was, subsequently, informed on 19-9-2009 (Annexure P/6) that the petitioner's facilities together with security interest etc. have been assigned and transferred in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner's writ petition was returned to the petitioner for presentation before the appropriate forum by the High Court of MP vide order dated 11-2-2009 (Annexure P/10). 3. Mr. K.M. Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the instant petition has been filed on the ground that entire action of the respondent-Bank is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and against the spirit & object of the SARFAESI Act as also against the norms of Reserve Bank of India (for brevity "RBI"). For initiating any action u/s 13(2), classifying a borrower's loan account as NPA is a sine qua non. Though the petitioner has defaulted in repayment of his secured debt or making payment in installments, however, the debt advanced to the petitioner has not been classified as NPA by the secured creditor as defined in Section 2(1)(o)(a) of the Act. The petitioner's account has been declared NPA w.e.f. 30-9-2007, which was Sunday. 4. Though the petitioner has defaulted in repayment of his secured debt or making payment in installments, however, the debt advanced to the petitioner has not been classified as NPA by the secured creditor as defined in Section 2(1)(o)(a) of the Act. The petitioner's account has been declared NPA w.e.f. 30-9-2007, which was Sunday. 4. From perusal of the notice of Annexure P/3, it is apparent that there is no categorization of the petitioner's NPA as sub-standard, doubtful or loss asset after its alleged classification dated 30-9-2007, which is necessary as per Clause 4.1 of the RBI norms. Therefore, classification of the petitioner's account as NPA is not in accordance with the norms prescribed by the RBI and accordingly, all consequential actions, notices and transfer and assignment of petitioner's facilities and security interests are also void. 5. The respondent-Bank has suo motu caused their appearance through their counsel Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate. 6. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-Bank, argued that the petitioner has already filed an appeal u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (respondent No. 4) and the appeal is pending. The secured assets and facilities extended to the petitioner have already been assigned to respondent No. 3 in the meanwhile. The petitioner has not raised any objection after receiving notice u/s 13(2) before the respondent-Bank. The entire action against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act have been taken in accordance with mandatory provisions of the Act and the instant petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy for redressal of his grievances u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which he has already availed. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The sum and substance of the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's account has not been classified as NPA, which is sine qua non to issue a notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner was called upon to deposit arrears of interest amount of installments up to August, 2005 before 29th September, 2007, failing which the account was to be declared as NPA as per Income Recognition and Asset Classification norms of RBI. The petitioner was called upon to deposit arrears of interest amount of installments up to August, 2005 before 29th September, 2007, failing which the account was to be declared as NPA as per Income Recognition and Asset Classification norms of RBI. The notice was issued on 25th September, 2007 and on failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount by 29th September, 2007, the loan account of the petitioner is being treated as NPA w.e.f. 30th September, 2007, which incidentally happens to be Sunday. 9. Even otherwise, as per norms of RBI to classify NPA, the account has to be categorized as sub-standard asset, doubtful asset or loss asset. However, without mentioning as to in which of the categories account of the petitioner falls, his account is being treated as NPA. 10. Mr. Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner, fairly admits that the High Court, at this gate, and in these proceedings under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is not a proper forum to decide any dispute with reference to any of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. However, he submits that the facts revealing from the acts of the respondent-Bank are so glaring that interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is warranted. 11. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 was enacted to enable the banks and financial institutions to realize long-term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mis-match and improve recovery by exercising powers to take possession of securities, sell them and reduce non-performing assets by adopting measures for recovery or reconstruction, as reveals from the Statement of Object and Reasons of the I SARFAESI Act, 2002. 12. The Parliament considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Madia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, amended the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by Amendment Act of 2004 and introduced Section 13(3A), which reads as under: 13. Enforcement of security interest. (3A) If, on receipt of the notice under Sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower. Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal u/s 17 or the Court of District Judge u/s 17A. 13. From pleadings in the writ petition and documents annexed therewith, it appears that the petitioner did not make any representation after receipt of notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 as contemplated u/s 13(3A). It was open to the petitioner to raise all those objections, which the petitioner has raised in this petition, by way of representation u/s 13(3A). On such representation being made, it was incumbent upon the secured creditor to communicate its reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to borrower within one week of receipt of such representation. Indisputably, the possession notice u/s 13(4) has been issued to the petitioner on his failure to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in Sub-section (2) and the petitioner has already challenged the notice under Sub-section (4) by way of filing appeal before respondent No. 4/Debt Recovery Tribunal. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the instant petition is not maintainable; the same is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, dismissed.