JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. Mrs. Sanjeeda Begum and Kalam Ahmad are before this Court with the request to quash the possession notice dated 17.10.2015 issued by Union Bank of India. 3. Record in question reflects that earlier also petitioner has been before this Court by preferring Writ Petition No.44570/2015 at the stage when notice dated 13th July, 2015 under Section 13(2) of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 has been issued. This Court, at the said point of time, on 17th August, 2015 proceeded to make a mention that petitioners have an objection under Section 12(3-A) of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 and accordingly, the writ petition in question was dismissed. 4. Now, once again, the petitioner is before this Court when petitioner has been asked to handover/surrender possession of the secured assets. 5. S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 is a self-contained act and in case petitioner has any issue under the aforementioned Act, then her remedy lies in ensuring proceedings under Section 17 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002. 6. Once there is equal efficacious and alternative remedy, then as per the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others (2010) 8 SCC 110 , there is no occasion for us to entertain the writ petition in question. 7. Writ petition in question is dismissed accordingly.