JUDGMENT As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, Rajiv Kumar,? husband of the petitioner took loan in the name and style? of M/s Shiva Kirana Store. The said? Rajiv Kumar committed default in payment of the said loan. Consequently, the? proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Securitization Act") have been initiated. Possession Notice dated 18.01.2011 under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act has been issued in this regard. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, inter-alia, praying for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization Act. 3. We have heard Shri S.P. Giri,? learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 4. The proceedings being taken under the Securitization Act have been impugned in the Writ Petition on various grounds.? 5. In United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitization Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said Act. 6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & others (supra) and keeping in view the nature? of controversy involved in the Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing Appeal/ Application under Section 17 of the Securitization Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 7. We accordingly dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing Appeal/Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitization Act.