JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. On due consideration, urgency application no.291 of 2013 is allowed. 2. Also heard on the merits of the petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that in the year 1996, petitioner, on behalf of his firm M/s Virendra Grits & Cement Blocks, borrowed a loan worth Rs. 13,13,000/- from the U.P. Financial Corporation (hereinafter called as Corporation). The petitioner could not repay the same and later on in the year 2000, his Unit was declared to be sick one. The Corporation, when strived to recover the amount of debt, petitioner filed a writ petition bearing no.42854/1999 before the Allahabad High Court, which was re-numbered as WPMB No.1204 of 2001 on being transferred to this Court after this State came into existence. The petition, while taken up for hearing, was permitted to be withdrawn as prayed for by the learned senior counsel who appeared for the petitioner, but a liberty was granted to him for making representation to the Corporation in order to persuade them to grant easy installments/waiver of loan. 3. It appears that when the petitioner could get any relief from the Corporation or its Officers, he has again approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel has read out the provisions of Section 1(4), as also Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [hereinafter would be called as the Act]. Attention of this Court was also drawn towards a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation & others’ reported in (2003) 2 SCC 455 . 5. In the said case, although the proceedings initiated by the Corporation were quashed by the Hon’ble Apex Court with a liberty to the Corporation to take such action under the Act or the Financial Act, but it was nowhere stated that no other alternative action could be taken by the Corporation for the effective recovery of its debt. A creditor or a person, who has given a large amount of loan, is at liberty to recover the same from his debtor by opting the means which are effectively and easily available to him. 6. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, the Court is not inclined to grant any relief. A creditor or a person, who has given a large amount of loan, is at liberty to recover the same from his debtor by opting the means which are effectively and easily available to him. 6. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, the Court is not inclined to grant any relief. The petition is bereft of any merit and liable to be dismissed in limine. Petition is thus, dismissed but without any order as to costs.