JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, a proprietorship firm, availed credit facility of Rs. 8,71,000/- from respondent-Bank and executed requisite loan agreement and other documents. It appears that petitioner has failed to repay the requisite instalments, and therefore, its loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the respondent-Bank secured creditor on 13th June, 2015. After classifying the loan account of the petitioner-firm as NPA, the secured creditor, i.e., Bank initiated recovery proceedings by resorting to Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, SARFAESI Act) by issuing notice to it under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 2nd of July, 2015. In the notice (Annex.1) under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, total dues against the petitioner-firm were shown as Rs. 8,74,194/- inclusive of accrued interest upto 30th June, 2015. Against notice (Annex.1), no representation/objection was submitted by the petitioner-firm within the stipulated period, and therefore, secured creditor took recourse of the measure to recover secured debts under clause (a) of subsection (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act vide notice (Annex.2). Against notice (Annex.2), petitioner submitted a letter dated 8th September, 2015 (Annex.3) admitting its liability. It is in that background, petitioner has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers:- 1. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Bank not to take illegal action or physical possession under SARFAESI Act 2002 till the expiry of statutory period of appal provided under section 17 of SARFAESI Act. 2. Hon'ble court may be pleased to hold and declare that the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act on first instance can only take symbolic possession enabling the aggrieved borrower to seek remedy of appeal/judicial review and Bank should wait reasonably till the adjudication of the matter by DRT. 3. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Bank not to misuse the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 in routine and in casual manner without any just an proper apprehension of danger to public funds. 4. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Reverse Bank of India to make proper rules and regulations regarding initiating processing under SARFAESI Act, 2002, and regarding symbolic and physical possession as misuse of the proceeding on is bad in law and can ruin the life of citizen of India. 5. 4. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Reverse Bank of India to make proper rules and regulations regarding initiating processing under SARFAESI Act, 2002, and regarding symbolic and physical possession as misuse of the proceeding on is bad in law and can ruin the life of citizen of India. 5. Hon'ble court may be pleased to hold and declare that without any just and reasonable apprehension Bank cannot take physical possession of secured assets, taking symbolic possession if can safeguard the interest of the Bank then in first instance only symbolic possession of the secured property should be taken and once exercising the option of symbolic possession without any reasonable apprehension of danger to property Bank should not take physical possession merely to recover money from borrower as a tool. 6. Any other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner. 7. And for this act of kindness petitioner shall every pray. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned notices. 3. At the outset, it may be observed that precise object of the SARFAESI Act is recovery of debts by non-adjudicatory process. Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act deals with liquidation of liability in a case where there is no scope of any dispute regarding liability. Any action initiated by the secured creditor for enforcement of security interest by way of measures refer to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act is appealable and aggrieved person (including borrower) may make an application along with the prescribed fee to Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measures had been taken. 4. Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [ (2004) 4 SCC 311 ], while considering remedy under Section 17 of the Act, held: "80. Under the Act in consideration, we find that before taking action a notice of 60 days is required to be given and after the measures under Section 13(4) of the Act have been taken, a mechanism has been provided under Section 17 of the Act to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The above noted provisions are for the purposes of giving some reasonable protection to the borrower. The above noted provisions are for the purposes of giving some reasonable protection to the borrower. Viewing the matter in the above perspective, we find what emerges from different provisions of the Act, is as follows:- 1. Under sub-section (2) of Section 13 it is incumbent upon the secured creditor to serve 60 days notice before proceeding to take any of the measures as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. After service of notice, if the borrower raises any objection or places facts for consideration of the secured creditor, such reply to the notice must be considered with due application of mind and the reasons for not accepting the objections, howsoever brief they may be, must be communicated to the borrower. In connection with this conclusion we have already held a discussion in the earlier part of the judgment. The reasons so communicated shall only be for the purposes of the information/knowledge of the borrower without giving rise to any right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, at that stage. 2. As already discussed earlier, on measures having been taken under subsection (4) of Section 13 and before the date of sale/auction of the property it would be open for the borrower to file an appeal (petition) under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 3. That the Tribunal in exercise of its ancillary powers shall have jurisdiction to pass any stay/interim order subject to the condition as it may deem fit and proper to impose. 4. In view of the discussion already held in this behalf, we find that the requirement of deposit of 75% of amount claimed before entertaining an appeal (petition) under Section 17 of the Act is an oppressive, onerous and arbitrary condition against all the canons of reasonableness. Such a condition is invalid and it is liable to be struck down. 5. As discussed earlier in this judgment, we find that it will be open to maintain a civil suit in civil court, within the narrow scope and on the limited grounds on which they are permissible, in the matters relating to an English mortgage enforceable without intervention of the court." 5. Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. [ (2010) 8 SCC 110 ], while considering remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, found that the same is both expeditious and effective. Court held: "42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17 (1). The expression "any person" used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective." 6. While considering the question as to whether in such matters writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be entertained, the Court answered in negative on the principle of availability of alternate remedy and held: "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute." 7. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute." 7. The aforesaid view is further reiterated by Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ (2011) 2 SCC 782 ], wherein the Supreme Court has also opined in clear and unequivocal terms that action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act constitute an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, and therefore, same would fall within the ambit of Section 17(1) of the Act. Thus, the Court concluded that against both the actions SARFAESI Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by providing for an appeal before the DRT. While acknowledging remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as efficacious alternative remedy, the Court approved the verdict of High Court declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Court held: "23. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, and SBI v. Allied Chemical Laboratories. ) 24. In City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala this Court had observed that: (SCC p.175, para 30) "30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of the writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) the person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors." 25. In the instant case, apart from the fact that admittedly certain disputed questions of fact viz. non-receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, non-communication of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate etc. are involved, an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act was available to the appellants, who ultimately availed of the same. Therefore, having regard to the facts obtaining in the case, the High Court was fully justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution." 8. Therefore, in view of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner against impugned action of the secured creditor respondent-Bank under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, I am not persuaded to interfere in the matter. 9. Consequently, petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******