JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the respondent bank. 2. The respondents had filed an Interlocutory Application for vacating the interim order dated 22.12.2017, which is registered as I.A.(Civil) No.1218/2018. An objection was also filed to the said Interlocutory Application. 3. In the writ petition, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondents and reply affidavit was also filed to the said affidavit-in-opposition. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal instead of the Interlocutory Application. 4. The petitioner company, which is a manufacturer of railway sleepers, availed a loan under cash credit facility from the respondent IDBI bank to the tune of Rs. 255 lakhs. Such cash credit facility was sanctioned against collateral securities in the form of equitable mortgage in respect of 3 plots of land, lien on fixed deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs and personal guarantee of the guarantors. Subsequently, by a communication dated 23.03.2013, the cash credit facility was fixed at Rs. 235 lakhs. However, the same was converted to Working Capital Term Loan on the request of the petitioner by a communication dated 29.06.2013. The loan of the petitioner became Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.12.2013 and, correspondingly, by a communication dated 02.05.2014, the Directors of the petitioner company were informed about recalling of the entire principal loan amount, with interest, and payment of a sum of Rs. 2,63,08,185/- was demanded. The petitioner company submitted a proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS) on receipt of the communication dated 02.05.2014 proposing to pay Rs. 235 lakhs. The same was refused by the respondent bank by a communication dated 11.07.2014, with a request to submit a fresh OTS with substantial improvement in the offer. Later on, the respondent bank issued a notice dated 26.07.2014, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act), to the petitioner company as well as its Directors and demanded payment of a sum of Rs. 2,73,70,460.24 within 60 days. The petitioner company submitted a revised OTS proposal on 04.08.2014 proposing to make payment of the principal amount due, in 8 equal installments, with a request to waive the interest part. 2,73,70,460.24 within 60 days. The petitioner company submitted a revised OTS proposal on 04.08.2014 proposing to make payment of the principal amount due, in 8 equal installments, with a request to waive the interest part. Such request was turned down by the respondent bank by a communication dated 11.08.2014. One more OTS proposal along with a cheque of Rs. 40 lakhs was submitted by the petitioner company to clear outstanding of Rs. 240 lakhs. Rest amount of Rs. 200 lakhs was proposed to be paid within a period of 6 months. The request was not accepted as the offer was not to the satisfaction of the bank. One more OTS proposal came to be submitted by the petitioner on 10.12.2014 proposing to pay Rs. 260 lakhs, out of which Rs. 40 lakhs was proposed to be paid immediately and the balance of Rs. 220 lakhs within a period of 6 months. The said OTS proposal of the petitioner was approved and a communication was issued to the petitioner by the bank on 18.03.2015 to that effect. The OTS proposal visualized payment as follows:- (a) Rs. 40 lakhs on acceptance of Letter of Acceptance. (b) 1st installment of Rs. 110 lakhs to be paid by 31.03.2015, and (c) Balance of Rs. 110 lakhs to be paid by 30.04.2015. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not repay the loan in terms of the commitment made in the OTS proposal and, therefore, on 30.03.2015 the petitioner company requested the respondent bank to extend the time limit for repayment. Several parleys took place between the parties and the request of the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 300 lakhs was accepted by the respondent bank by a communication dated 08.02.2016. The payment schedule was fixed as under:- (a) Payment made on 01.01.2016 and 08.01.2016 amounting to Rs. 60 lakhs. (b) Rs. 80 lakhs within a week of issuance of the Letter of Acceptance. (c) Rs. 80 lakhs by 15.02.2016. (d) Rs. 80 lakhs by 28.02.2016. 6. The petitioner, though made payment to the tune of Rs. 205 lakhs, yet failed to meet the commitment and, accordingly, the bank revoked the letter dated 08.02.2016. On 12.12.2017, the Authorized Officer of the respondent bank issued the possession notice showing outstanding amount of Rs. 2,73,70,460.24 and a paper publication was made on 16.12.2017. 80 lakhs by 28.02.2016. 6. The petitioner, though made payment to the tune of Rs. 205 lakhs, yet failed to meet the commitment and, accordingly, the bank revoked the letter dated 08.02.2016. On 12.12.2017, the Authorized Officer of the respondent bank issued the possession notice showing outstanding amount of Rs. 2,73,70,460.24 and a paper publication was made on 16.12.2017. Possession notice was also handed over to the Directors of the petitioner company. At this juncture, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this application. Prayers made in the petition read as follows: "1. A writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent bank to allow the petitioner company to repay the loan amount as mentioned in the paragraph 21 of this present application. 2. A writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent bank not to put on sale the mortgaged property of the petitioner company till repayment is made by the petitioner company as mentioned in paragraph 21 of this present application. 3. A writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent bank to consider the proposal made by the petitioner on 18/12/2017. 4. A writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent bank to accept the proposal of payment as per OTS dated 08.02.2016 and to close the loan account of the petitioner company and to return back the title deeds of the mortgaged property." 7. At paragraph 21, the petitioner stated as follows:- "21. That the petitioner company is willing to repay the outstanding amount as per the OTS proposal dated 08/02/2016 and it has no intention to avoid repayment of its loan. However, due to the present precarious financial condition faced by it, the petitioner company is not in a position to comply with the demand for immediate payment of the outstanding amount. But the petitioner company is ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs. 95 lakhs (Outstanding amount of OTS dated 08.02.2016) immediately as follows: (a) Rs. 25 lakhs within 15.01.2018 (b) And Rs. 70 lakhs within 6 months in 3 installments. In this regard, the petitioner approached the bank with the aforesaid proposal but the respondent Bank refused to accept the same. It is stated herein that though the petitioner company mentioned in its representation about Rs. 25 lakhs within 15.01.2018 (b) And Rs. 70 lakhs within 6 months in 3 installments. In this regard, the petitioner approached the bank with the aforesaid proposal but the respondent Bank refused to accept the same. It is stated herein that though the petitioner company mentioned in its representation about Rs. 55 lakhs but the same is a mistake on the part of the petitioner company and the same shall be read as Rs. 95 lakhs. The same position was explained to the respondent bank but they refused to hear anything from the petitioner company side." 8. On 22.12.2017, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will pay an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs within 15.01.2018 and, thereafter, the balance of Rs. 70 lakhs in 3 equated installments within a period of 6 months from 15.01.2018, this Court issued notice returnable 6 weeks. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs by 15.01.2018. It was also provided that subject to deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs within 15.01.2018, the possession notice dated 12.12.2017, published on 16.12.2017, shall remain stayed. 9. Mr. Choudhury has candidly submitted that the petitioner deposited only Rs. 15 lakhs on 11.01.2018 and thereafter, on 24.01.2018 deposited another amount of Rs. 25 lakhs and, since then no deposit has been made by the petitioner. 10. Mr. Das has submitted that apart from the fact the petitioner has failed to keep its commitment in terms of the order of this Court, the petitioner has also availed regular alternative remedy by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and, therefore, the writ application ought not to be entertained any longer and ought to be dismissed, so that the bank can take appropriate steps for recovery of its dues. 11. Mr. Choudhury, however, seeks to contend that the issue raised in the writ petition is not one and the same as that raised in the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. He submits that while the subject matter in the application under Section 17 is pertaining to the possession notice, no such prayer has been made in the writ petition and, therefore, the contention advanced by Mr. Das that the petitioner is availing recourse of two remedies is not correct. 12. He submits that while the subject matter in the application under Section 17 is pertaining to the possession notice, no such prayer has been made in the writ petition and, therefore, the contention advanced by Mr. Das that the petitioner is availing recourse of two remedies is not correct. 12. The writ petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to deposit, by way of repayment, the amount as mentioned in paragraph 21 of the writ application. The petitioner, on his own showing, has failed to make the payment although the period, as stipulated by the petitioner had already expired. The proposal made by the petitioner in the letter dated 18.12.2017, for acceptance of which a writ of mandamus is sought, is considerably on a lower scale than what was offered to be paid by the petitioner at paragraph 21 of the writ petition. 13. It is to be noticed that this Court, in the interim order dated 22.12.2017, had stayed the possession notice subject to deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs on or before 15.01.2018. True, possession notice as such was not put to question but, at the same time, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the writ petitioner had sought for direction restraining the bank from proceeding with sale or disposal of the property. That necessarily takes within its fold the possession notice and recovery of physical possession taken thereof in as much as the question of sale or disposal of property will not arise if possession notice is not issued and physical possession is not taken over. Therefore, fundamentally, both the writ petition and the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, arise out of the same contextual facts. That apart, the petitioner has failed to honour its own commitment, on which a writ of mandamus was sought for. 14. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.