JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J.- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. A number of grounds have been raised by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, challenging the e-auction sale notice issued by the respondent Bank, dated 6.1.2014. 3. In similar circumstances, this court had passed an order, dated 20.2.2014, in W.P.No.34376 of 2013 etc. (batch), wherein e-auction sale notices had been challenged. In the said order, dated 20.2.2014, this Court had upheld the validity of the e-auction sale procedures adopted by the respondent Banks concerned, while bringing the secured assets for sale, in discharge of the liabilities of the petitioners therein. As such, the issues raised for the consideration of this court, in the present writ petition, are covered by the decision of this court, dated 20.2.2014. 4. It is also noted that certain other grounds have also been raised, by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, while challenging the e-auction sale notice. In this regard, 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 available to the petitioners, 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). 5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that, in view of the order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.34376 of 2013 etc. (batch), dated 20.2.2014, the reliefs prayed for, by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.