JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the proceedings initiated against them by the respondent-Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. The petitioners took cash credit facility for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- after creating equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent-Bank but at a later stage when committed default in making payment of regular installments, the respondent-Bank declared their loan account as NPA and served with notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 on 24/11/2009 and after expiry of the statutory period when the petitioners failed to make any objections pursuant to the notice served, further notice was served upon the petitioners under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 obtaining possession of the secured assets on 15/02/2010. It is a matter of record that the symbolic possession pursuant to the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, has been taken by the respondents and opportunity was available with the petitioners to clear their outstanding dues and to get their account regularised but the petitioners without availing opportunity approached this Court by filing instant petition and to see their bona fides, initially orders were passed by the Court on 04/05/2010 restraining the respondent-Bank from auctioning the property/secured assets mortgaged with the respondent-Bank till further orders provided the petitioners deposit Rs. 25,000/- against the existing outstanding dues. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the procedure which the respondents have adopted in issuing notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002, is in clear violation of the Scheme of the Act, 2002 and the due drawn statement of accounts was never made available to the petitioners in absence whereof, the proceedings initiated itself stand vitiated. 4. The respondents have filed reply in which preliminary objection has been raised that after the notice under Section 13(4) being served upon the petitioners, they were having liberty/opportunity to avail remedy available under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 and apart from it the petitioners made misleading statement before the Court about the outstanding dues and regarding payments made during the intervening period. 5. 5. From the material which has come on record, it remained uncontroverted that after the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 being served upon the petitioners, no written objection was filed even after expiry of 60 days period and the respondent-Bank was right in initiating further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. 6. After taking note of the submissions made by counsel for respondents regarding preliminary objections with respect to availability of remedy to the petitioners under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, counsel for petitioners submits that he may advise his clients to avail remedy as referred to supra but at least for a period of fifteen days the respondent-Bank may not take physical possession of the secured property/assets from the petitioners as they are residing in the property in question which is mortgaged with the respondent-Bank. 7. Without going into merits of the case any further, however, after taking note of the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, this Court finds substance that once the remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, this Court should refrain from interfering in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but at the same time this Court considers it appropriate to direct the respondents that at least for a period of coming two weeks, the respondents may not take physical possession of the mortgaged property/assets so as enable the petitioners to avail remedy available under the statute. 8. With these directions/observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.Writ Petition Disposed of. *******