Order Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the last date of hearing i.e. 15.1.2013, had sought adjournment stating that he would like to seek instruction about the mode of• repayment of the outstanding amount. On his request, case was adjourned for today. 2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he has been instructed by the petitioner to make statement that petitioner is not ready and willing to repay the outstanding amount at this stage, therefore, writ petition be heard on merit. 3. In short, facts of the present case are:- 4. Undisputedly, on 9.2.2004, petitioner-firm was sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.18.63 lacs and a Cash Credit limit of Rs.30 lacs. There were default in repayment of loan, therefore, account was restructured on 10.3.2007; on restructuring, interest on Term Loan was capitalised and the limit was raised to Rs.23.92 lacs, however, the Cash Credit limit was kept intact to Rs.30 lacs; again petitioner failed to repay the loan and account was declared NPA on 31.3.2008, however, operation in CC Account was allowed withholding back 20% of cash credit limit; since there were regular default in the matter of repayment of the loan amount, fresh restructuring was done on 30.9.2009 and overdue interest on Cash Credit limit was converted into FITL with limit of Rs.13.21 lacs and existing Term Loan and Cash Credit limit was reviewed at Rs.23.91 lacs and Rs.30 facs respectively. Despite restructuring being done time to time in favour of the petitioner, petitioner failed to discharge his liabilities and has committed again default in repayment of the loan amount; ultimately, on 31.8.2012, the account was declared as NPA; Notice dated 15.9.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, was issued; Petitioner has filed objections under Section 13(3-A) of the Act on 25.9.2012; Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 16.11.2012; Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition challenging-Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that after notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, petitioner has preferred an objection under Section 13(3-A) of the Act on 25.9.2012 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), however, without taking any decision on the objection under Section 13(3-A) of the Act, respondent-Bank has issued a final notice under Section 13(4) of the Act (Anexure-3 to the writ petition). 6. While placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Stan Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi & Ors., reported in [ 2008(4) JCR 162 (Jhr.)] [ 2008 (3) JLJR 244 ], learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that respondent Bank was duty bound to take decision on the objection under Section 13(3-A) of the Act. Since no decision has been taken thereon or ever communicated to the petitioner therefore, notice under Section 13(4) of the Act stands vitiated. 7. On the other hand, Mr. A. Allam, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate, has vehemently argued that as per the admitted facts, as stated in the counter affidavit as observed hereinbefore, despite petitioner's account in question was restructured on different earlier occasions and account of the petitioner was declared NPA earlier, petitioner failed to repay the loan, therefore, petitioner was rightly declared NPA on 31.8.2012. Secondly, notice under Section 13(2) as well as under Section 13(4) of the Act are valid and do not require any interference. He further submits that for raising any objection under Section 13(3-A) of the Act, borrower must indicate that how declaration of the borrower's account as NPA, is wrong and borrower must also indicate in the objection that he is ready and willing to repay the loan amount which is outstanding to the borrower. According to Mr. Allam, on every frivolous, vague and ambiguous objections under Section 13(3-A), without there being any indication as to how calculation and declaration of NPA is wrong and borrower is ready to repay admitted outstanding amount, Bank is not obliged to take decision thereon to delay the recovery process. He further submits that if proceeding of recovery is delayed only because some frivolous objections are raised, chances of skipping of the borrower may not be ruled out making the recovery process very difficult. He further submits that if proceeding of recovery is delayed only because some frivolous objections are raised, chances of skipping of the borrower may not be ruled out making the recovery process very difficult. He has further argued that petitioner-borrower has alternate remedy of filing appeal under. Section 17 of the Act, therefore, petitioner should not be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. No doubt, as per the provisions of Section 13(3-A) of the Act, borrower has a right to make representation or objection against the decision of the secured creditor declaring the amount as NPA as well as against the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. There is no doubt that such a right is an important right with the borrower. If, borrower files his objections/representation, secured creditor must take appropriate decision thereon, in accordance with law and shall communicate the same to the borrower within seven days thereafter. 9. In the firm opinion of this Court, declaration by the secured creditor account as NPA shall give rise to valuable right to the borrower to point out to the secured creditor that borrower still has financial position to repay the loan and borrower must show his readiness and willingness towards the repayment of the amount which, in fact, is outstanding according to the borrower himself and while showing readiness and willingness, borrower may indicate that calculation made by secured creditor is wrong for such and such reasons. 10. I have read the objections raised by the borrower-petitioner. In the present case in the objections under Section 13(3-A), petitioner-borrower is saying that since power supplied was discontinued by the Electricity Board and one of the partners was lodged in the jail in connection with some criminal act, therefore, installments could not be paid in time. Petitioner has further stated in the said objection that without following the directions/guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and without following the principles of natural justice, Bank has calculated present outstanding amount up to 15.9.2012 to the tune of Rs.57.15 lacs with interest @ 15.50% per annum with monthly interest. It has not been pointed out in the objection, what is wrong with the calculation. It has not been pointed out in the objection, what is wrong with the calculation. It has also not been stated that what is the• correct outstanding amount as per the borrower and borrower is ready and willing to repay at least admitted outstanding amount. 11. It has also not been disputed by way of filing rejoinder affidavit before this Court that earlier also petitioner has defaulted in repayment of loan and on different occasions, the account was• restructured and further earlier also, account was declared NPA. 12. Not only this, as observed hereinbefore, first of all, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to obtain instructions to make statement about the mode of repayment of outstanding amount and, thereafter, has refused to pay the amount, saying the writ petition be decided on merit. It seems that petitioner is interested in delaying the payment of the loan by hook or crook. 13. In the firm opinion of this Court, the borrower, who is not showing his bona fide in the matter of repayment of the loan, which is a public money, such borrower should not be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the hyper-technical ground. At the risk of repetition, it is held that while raising the objection under Section 13(3-A), the borrower must indicate that according to him, such and such amount is outstanding and he is ready and willing to repay the admitted outstanding amount and must also indicate his capacity and proposed mode of repayment of admitted amount of loan. He should also indicate his own calculation to show that calculation made by secured creditor is incorrect for such and such reason so that secured creditor may take appropriate decision on the disputed part of the amount. 14. The borrower can be permitted, in a suitable case, to invoke the writ jurisdiction, if he is able to establish that objections raised by him under Section 13(3-A) are not frivolous, vague and ambiguous and have some substance and for the reasons indicated In the objections/representation, the account should have not been declared NPA and further if the borrower is able to show that he is interested and willing in repayment of at least admitted amount. However, when borrower is not showing his bona fide and is not suggesting how he shall pay at least admitted amount, he should not be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction. In view of the fact that petitioner-borrower has alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act to file appeal against the action taken by the Bank under Section 13(4), I am not inclined, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to entertain present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Therefore, present petition stands dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act.