Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Mr. D.P. Chaliha and Mr. U.P. Chaliha, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard on admission. 3. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that respondents be directed not to give effect to Notice dated 28.10.2016. 4. The petitioner is a businessman. He in the year 2012 admittedly borrowed Rs. 7.5 Lakh from respondent No. 2—Corporation Bank to augment his business. In the same year he also borrowed Rs. 24 Lakh for construction of residential house. And admittedly he defaulted in repayment of installments. In the result, his account was classified by respondent No. 2 as Non Performing Asset and steps were taken under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’). Finally, by the impugned Notice dated 28.10.2016, respondent No. 2 has informed the petitioner that the immovable secured assets shall be sold by public auction on 8.12.2016. 5. The petitioner has not denied that steps have been taken against him by respondent No. 2 under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. He has also not denied that he is under a liability to respondent No. 2 under a security agreement and that he has defaulted in repayment of secured debt. 6. This being the situation, the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as provided under the SARFAESI Act. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 , the Supreme Court has virtually directed the High Courts not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act to the borrowers. We are, therefore, not inclined to admit the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is accordingly dismissed.