Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated April 19, 2010 is questioning a notice (at p.40) issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce under s.13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In response to the notice the petitioner submitted a representation dated March 30, 2010 (at p.48). In response the bank has written a letter dated April 6, 2010 (at p.52). Contending that without considering the facts and circumstances stated in the representation the bank has given the reply dated April 6, 2010 deciding to go by its s.13(2) notice, thus opening the avenue for initiating proceedings under s.13(4), the petitioner brought this art. 226 petition. The question is whether the High Court should interfere in the matter in exercise of power under art.226 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, the High Court should not interfere in the matter in exercise of power under art. 226. If the petitioner’s representation was not duly considered by the bank, then the petitioner was free to point out the thing to the bank asking the bank to reconsider the representation before deciding to take steps under s.13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The bank’s failure to consider the representation meaningfully can be a ground in the s.17 appeal from the step, if any, taken by the bank under s.13(4), and it is only at such stage that the Debts Recovery Tribunal will be required to examine whether the representation to the s.13(2) notice was meaningfully considered by the bank. Needless to say that if the Tribunal finds that the representation did not receive the bank’s meaningful consideration, then it can set aside the steps taken by the bank under s.13 (4) and direct the bank to reconsider the representation. When this is the process through which the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor under the special statute are supposed to proceed further, I do not find any reason to derail the proceedings permitting the petitioner to initiate writ proceedings before the High Court under art. 226. When this is the process through which the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor under the special statute are supposed to proceed further, I do not find any reason to derail the proceedings permitting the petitioner to initiate writ proceedings before the High Court under art. 226. Questions which are to be examined and decided, if at all, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in future, in my opinion, should not be examined and decided by the Writ Court initiating a multi-tier litigation between the parties de hors the provisions of the special statute. For these reasons, I hold that power under art.226 should not be exercised to interfere in the matter. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.