JUDGMENT S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA The petitioners, aggrieved persons have preferred this writ petition against the notices dated 30th June 2005 and 7th July 2005 issued by the respondent – Surat Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the SARFAESI Act'). The main grievance was that though the petitioners have not mortgaged the property and are not the borrowers, the respondent Bank has taken possession of their immovable property. 2. The notices were issued on the respondent. The case has remained pending. The Court also noticed that a separate Lavad Suit No.558/1999 has been filed by the Bank, which is pending. In the mean time, notices under the SARFAESI Act has been issued. Further, taking into consideration the stand taken by the petitioners, the measure under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act has been taken without notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, some interim order was also passed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. The question relating to entertaining the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against recovery of dues by bank is called for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time. 5. In the case of Punjab National Bank v/s. O.C.Krishnan and others, reported in (2001)6 SCC 569 , having noticed the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Supreme Court held that when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the constitutional provisions. 6. In the case of United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in (2010)8 SCC 110 , the Supreme Court noticed the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The Apex Court, on hearing the parties, held as follows: “Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” 7. In the present case, as we find that there is a remedy of appeal available under Section 17 to the petitioner and if there is a mixed question of fact and law to find out whether any provision of the Act and rules have been violated or not, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge, instead of keeping the matter pending, ought to have allowed the petitioners to move again before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 8. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion, we allow the petitioners to move before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the measures taken by the Bank. 9. If an appeal under Section 17 is preferred by the petitioners within a period of three weeks before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Tribunal will, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were pursuing the matter before this Court since 2005, entertain the appeal and after notice to the Bank, will decide the case on merits preferably within two months. 10. It will be open to the petitioners to bring to the notice of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the petitioners were enjoying interim order of stay, and thereby, may request the Tribunal to pass appropriate interim order, which may consider the same in accordance with law. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. No cost.