Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to receive the amount as per onetime settlement letter with reference to SBI-BA-OTS-2013-14 Ac No.30106982993, dated 30.01.2014 and further direct the respondents to close the loan account and return forthwith all the original documents deposited with them for securing the mortgage. 2. Making such prayer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that already a portion of the amount is available in his wife's account to meet the requirements of the respondents and that can always be adjusted by the respondents. However, the respondents have failed to adjust the amount. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents Bank through his counter affidavit submitted that the alleged letter dated 30.01.2014 has no authenticity at all and therefore, they dispute with regard to the 'One time Settlement Scheme' itself. He further submitted that under any circumstances, the petitioner cannot take recourse as per the alleged letter of the respondent bank dated 30.01.2014. Though the petitioner was given time till 15.03.2014 to settle the amount in question, he had failed to avail such opportunity. Therefore, this Writ Petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides. 4. On a perusal of the papers as well as the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, we are of the considered view that this Writ Petition is not maintainable on two grounds. First of all, the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court, in this Writ Petition. Secondly, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , has made it clear that the scope of interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited in nature. It has also made it clear that the statutory schemes provided under the specific enactments should not be defeated by the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. As such, the alternative remedies provided to the petitioner, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ought not to be interfered with, by this Court, by invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the alternative remedies provided to the petitioner, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ought not to be interfered with, by this Court, by invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has reiterated the said position of law in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-op.Bank Ltd. V. Sri Ikbal, reported in(2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC). 5. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that as far as 'one time settlement scheme' is concerned, it is between the Banks as well as the applicant concerned and the role of this Court is limited in nature. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to work his remedy provided under the Act, in the manner known to law. 6. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.