Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. In the present Writ Petition, an issue had arisen, relating to the action initiated by the respondent bank concerned, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, for appropriate relief. After considering the relevant aspects, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, had rejected the claim of the petitioner. As against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent dated 11.02.2013 made in S.A.Sr.No.2313 of 2012 (I.A.No.12 of 2013) and quash the same. 2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the respondent bank had initiated certain proceedings, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder. 3. The relief prayed for, by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, cannot be granted, by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it is well settled position in law that this Court ought to refrain from interfering with the process initiated by the respondent bank under the provisions of the Act. 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. The Supreme Court has reiterated the said position of law, in a recent decision, in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-op. Bank Ltd. V. Sri Ikbal, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC). 4. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands closed. The Supreme Court has reiterated the said position of law, in a recent decision, in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-op. Bank Ltd. V. Sri Ikbal, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC). 4. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands closed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal concerned for appropriate relief and work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Registry is directed to return the original impugned orders to the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the Photostat copies of the impugned orders, being furnished to the Registry.