JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. -Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner through this writ petition has approached this Court for challenging the demand notice Annexure-4 dated 13.8.2013 which was issued by the respondent Kotak Mahendra Bank Ltd. under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. 3. The writ petition is pending for the last four years and stay is operating in favour of the petitioner. 3. Despite several opportunities to clear off the bank dues, nothing has been done in this regard by the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the entire endeavour of the petitioner through this writ petition was to stall the proposed recovery proceedings being undertaken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act. 4. Manifestly in view of the specific remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act being available to the petitioner and as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. Vs. Mathew K.C. being Civil Appeal No. 1281 of 2018(arising out of SLP No. 24610 of 2015) decided on 30.1.2018, the High Court is not required to interfere in the matters of bank recovery under the SARFAESI Act while exercising its writ jurisdiction under under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of availability of statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned action. 6. Hence, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. The stay application is also rejected.