JUDGMENT M.Jaichandren J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the impugned sale notice, dated 13.1.2014, issued by the first respondent bank. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s.Palanisamy Traders, has been carrying on his business, as a commission agent of paddy. He had obtained a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the State Bank of India, Kallakurichi Branch, the first respondent herein, on 22.12.2006. The petitioner had mortgaged certain immovable properties belong to him, with the first respondent bank, for obtaining the said loan. Even though the petitioner has been repaying the loan amount, in installments, the first respondent bank had issued a notice, dated 24.4.2013, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, demanding the payment of a sum of Rs.9,99,597/-. 4. It had been further stated that the properties mortgaged with the first respondent bank are house sites with a dwelling house. 5. It had been further stated that, in spite of the representation made by the petitioner stating that he would discharge the liability, the first respondent bank had issued a notice, under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, dated 18.7.2013. This Court, by its order, dated 7.8.2013, had granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent bank, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, along with 25% of the amount due. A further direction had been issued to the first respondent bank to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of its submission. Even though the petitioner had submitted a representation, along with 25% of the amount due, as per the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent had proceeded to issue the impugned sale notice, dated 13.1.2014. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Even though the petitioner had submitted a representation, along with 25% of the amount due, as per the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent had proceeded to issue the impugned sale notice, dated 13.1.2014. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent bank had submitted that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. He had further submitted that the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy available to him, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to challenge the sale notice issued by the first respondent bank, dated 13.1.2014. 7. Even though various grounds have been raised on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the petitioner ought to make his claims, relating to the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present Writ Petition, before the appropriate forum, as provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. We make it clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him, before the appropriate forum, as per law. 8. It is 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. 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). 9. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 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). 9. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2014 is closed. No costs.