Judgment S. Rajeswaran, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the possession notice issued by the respondent-Bank on 21.3.2014. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 25.4.2014 and an order of interim stay was granted by this Court, on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent-Bank, on or before 10.6.2014. 3. It is now reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has already been paid to the respondent-Bank and the interim order has been complied with. 4. In the last hearing, it was reported by the leared counsel for the respondent-Bank that the petitioner was desirous of regularising the accounts by making payment, hence he was advised to approach the Bank with a request to regularise the accounts with the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner went to the Bank and gave a letter requesting, not for regularising the accounts, but for waiver of interest. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that as against the notice under Section 13(4), the petitioner ought not to have approached this Court and he should have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and in view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he is interested in settling the accounts with the Bank and he does not want to lose his property. 6. Be that as it may, the writ petition, in our considered opinion, cannot be maintained as against Section 13(4) notice, as there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and the same is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Bank for any relief either for regularising the accounts or for waiver of interest and it is for the respondent-Bank to consider the same. With regard to Section 13(4) notice, the petitioner has to approach the authority concerned under Section 17 of the Act, challenging the said possession notice. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Bank for any relief either for regularising the accounts or for waiver of interest and it is for the respondent-Bank to consider the same. With regard to Section 13(4) notice, the petitioner has to approach the authority concerned under Section 17 of the Act, challenging the said possession notice. Since it is reported that time to file a petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, challenging Section 13(4) notice, has already lapsed, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some more time to do the needful. Hence, we are inclined to give 15 days time to the petitioner, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to file a petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as against the possession notice, if he is desirous of doing so. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.