JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 3 as well as Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the partners of the petitioner No.1. The partnership firm had availed term loan of Rs. 160 lakhs and cash credit loan of Rs. 35 lakhs on 10.05.2012 from the respondent bank. To avail the loan, land and dwelling house of one Bizit Saikia, who is the father of the Managing Partners of the petitioner firm, was mortgaged. The loan account of the petitioner firm was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.03.2014. A demand notice dated 22.04.2014 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act) was issued for repayment of the loan. As the loan amount was not repaid, on 05.09.2014, the bank had issued possession notice and had taken over symbolic possession of the mortgaged land. 3. It appears that Bizit Saikia had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was numbered as WP© No. 3225/2015. A perusal of the order dated 04.06.2015 by which the writ petition was disposed of, goes to show that on the submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner in the said case, direction was issued to the petitioner in the said case to liquidate the entire loan amount within a period of 3 months and during the period of 3 months, the respondent bank was directed not to auction/sale the mortgaged land/property. Liberty was granted to the bank to take such action as may be considered necessary in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner therein to repay the outstanding amount. 4. It also appears that the petitioner No.1, represented by its partners, who are petitioner No.2 and 3 of the instant petition, had filed a writ petition, numbered and registered as WP© No.6918/2015, challenging an e-Auction Sale Notice dated 17.10.2015 issued under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act for sale of the property. 4. It also appears that the petitioner No.1, represented by its partners, who are petitioner No.2 and 3 of the instant petition, had filed a writ petition, numbered and registered as WP© No.6918/2015, challenging an e-Auction Sale Notice dated 17.10.2015 issued under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act for sale of the property. A perusal of the order dated 27.05.2016, by which the writ petition was dismissed, goes to show that the petitioner No.2 of the present writ petition had filed an affidavit on 20.04.2016 stating that he would repay the entire loan amount with interest within a period of 6 months. It was noted that though this Court had directed him earlier by an order dated 21.04.2016 to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs within a period of one month, not a single penny was deposited till the date of dismissal of the writ petition. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition, also held that the banks and financial institutions can invoke the provisions of SARFAESI Act for recovery of their debts even after having elected to seek remedy under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions. Act, 1993. 5. Against a notice of demand to the tune of Rs. 3,56,57,115.68 issued to the certificate debtors on 19.12.2017, the present petitioners had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP© No.4443/2018. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 16.07.2018 giving liberty to the petitioners to avail remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. The present writ petition is directed against an order dated 22.05.2018 issued by the Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M), whereby, on the basis of a letter dated 11.04.2018 of the Authorised Officer of the respondent bank, a Circle Officer of Dispur Revenue Circle was deputed to oversee the law and order situation during taking over possession of secured assets as mentioned therein, as well as a vacation notice dated 01.06.2018 issued by the respondent bank informing the petitioners that they would take possession of the land measuring 1 katha 10 lechas covered by Dag No.980(O)/1553(N) of K.P. Patta No.1(O)/47(N) situated at village Japorigog, Mouza-Beltola, Dist.-Kamrup(M), Assam, and advising them to vacate the house within 10 days of the date of the notice and to handover the property to the Authorised Officer. 7. Objection is taken to such order of the Addl. 7. Objection is taken to such order of the Addl. District Magistrate, as name of Bizit Saikia (who is no more) also appears in the details of secured assets. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is stated that Bizit Saikia had expired on 02.05.2018, whereas in paragraph 9, it is stated that he had expired on 02.05.2017. From the death certificate annexed, we find that Bizit Saikia had expired on 02.05.2017. 8. On 07.08.2018 when the writ petition was moved, it appears from the order passed on that day, that the learned counsel for the petitioners had made a submission that a proposal for one time settlement had been submitted in writing along with a cheque of Rs. 20 lakhs to the bank. The learned counsel for the bank had also confirmed that the cheque of Rs. 20 lakhs was submitted by the petitioners as part payment of the outstanding dues, but he had prayed for 10 days' time to seek instructions on the proposal made. While posting the case for further order on 20.08.2018, as an interim measure, status quo as it existed on that day with regard to the property in question, was directed to be maintained by the parties. The said interim order was continued on 20.08.2018 and it was noted that cheque was encashed. As the learned counsel for the bank had prayed for further 3 weeks' time to seek instructions and report about the decision taken with regard to one time settlement proposal, the case was fixed on 14.09.2018. 9. An interlocutory application being I.A.(Civil) No.3244/2018 was filed by bank to vacate the status quo order and to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost. In paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said application, it is stated as follows:- "2. That on 07.08.2018, the original writ petitioner no.3 submitted a post dated cheque drawn on the State Bank of India, Mumbai for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- and the date was given as 16.08.2018. Subsequently, the original writ petitioner no.2 telephonically requested the Chief Manager PNB, Zoo Road Branch to send the cheque for clearing on 17.08.2018 instead of 16.08.2018 since there are certain local holidays in the State of Maharashtra and the cheque may be dishonored due to technical reasons. 20,00,000/- and the date was given as 16.08.2018. Subsequently, the original writ petitioner no.2 telephonically requested the Chief Manager PNB, Zoo Road Branch to send the cheque for clearing on 17.08.2018 instead of 16.08.2018 since there are certain local holidays in the State of Maharashtra and the cheque may be dishonored due to technical reasons. Accordingly on the request of the original writ petitioners the cheque was sent for clearing on 17.08.2018 by the bank. 3. That the outstation cheques are sent for clearance through the bank's Regional Clearing Centre (RCC) at Kolkata which handles the clearance with the concerned bank on behalf of the home branch. On 20.08.2018, at about 11.00 am the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was shown as credited to the bank's non customer account no.1907003171160 being the proceeds of the cheque collection as per message received from the RCC. The non customer account was debited with the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- and the writ petitioner's loan account no.190700JH21000404 was credited with the said amount. The said deposit was informed to the learned counsel for the bank who after obtaining instructions from the bank submitted that the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was credited to the bank on behalf of the writ petitioners. 4. That on the basis of the said submission, this Hon'ble Court extended the order of status quo till 14.09.2018 on the premise that the OTS proposal was under consideration of the bank. Copy of order dated 20.08.2018 in WP© 5287/2018 is annexed as ANNEXURE-1. 5. That at about 3.45 pm on 20.08.2018, a telephonic message was received from RCC Kolkata to refund the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- as the cheque had been returned by the SBI due to insufficiency of funds. The Zoo Road Branch accordingly debited the amount from the loan account of the original writ petitioners and the same was informed to the counsel of the bank. However, by the time said instruction was communicated, the working hours of the Court were already over. 6. That after discussion with the counsel the bank communicated the dishonor of the cheque and the rejection of the OTS proposal to the original writ petitioners by its E-mail dated 20.08.2018 and also over the telephone. It was made clear that the bank will approach this Hon'ble Court for permission to continue the recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act." 10. That after discussion with the counsel the bank communicated the dishonor of the cheque and the rejection of the OTS proposal to the original writ petitioners by its E-mail dated 20.08.2018 and also over the telephone. It was made clear that the bank will approach this Hon'ble Court for permission to continue the recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act." 10. From the above statements made, it is seen that though submission was advanced before the Court by the learned counsel for the Bank that a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs by way of cheque deposited by the petitioners was encashed, in reality, the cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs issued by the petitioners was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. On a pointed query of the Court, Mr. Dutta submits that, in fact, the cheque was dishonoured. He has also candidly admitted that since the passing of the order dated 07.08.2018 till date, no amount had been paid for consideration of the proposal submitted for one time settlement. 11. The orders impugned in this writ proceeding are consequential orders passed following the demand notice dated 19.12.2017, in which also name of Bizit Saikia appeared. As noted earlier, while dismissing WP© No.4443/2018, filed by the petitioners, by order dated 16.07.2018, liberty was granted to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy. The writ petition is silent as to whether such remedy was availed of. Learned counsel for the petitioners is also unable to say whether such remedy was pursued. 12. On consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.