JUDGMENT : M.K. HANJURA, J. 1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner has craved the indulgence of this Court in granting him the following reliefs: “(i) Mandamus commanding the respondents not to initiate proceedings in terms of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 in view of the recourse having been taken by the respondent-Bank to the remedy of civil suit for recovery of the alleged outstanding amount, which since stands filed and is pending adjudication before the Court of Learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu Or in the alternative; (i) Mandamus commanding the respondents not to initiate any proceeding in terms of Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 without first issuing a notice under Section 13 (2) of the aforesaid Act of 2002 and without first affording to the petitioner the opportunity to make representation as has been statutorily made available to it under Section 13 (3A) of the aforesaid Act of 2002. (ii) Mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any coercive measures in terms of the notices issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 to the petitioner prior to the passing of judgment dated 16.12.2016 as well as top the One Time Settlement arrived at between the parties which was even acted upon and payments made in terms thereof. (iii) Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the mortgaged land measuring 03 kanals and 10 marlas comprised under Khasra No. 4397/1332 situated at Village Tharakalwal, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua, which has been forcibly taken possession of by the respondent-Bank; (iv) Prohibition restraining the respondents from proceedings to take over possession of other mortgaged properties of the petitioner without first issuing a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 and following the procedure detailed under the Act;” 2. The facts as these stem out from the instant petition, are that the petitioner approached the respondent-Bank in the month of December, 2009, for the sanction of the Cash Credit facility in an amount of Rs.1.35 crores as financial assistance for running the unit of the manufacturing of mineral water and soda water, but, as ill luck would have it, the petitioner suffered huge losses. Although, the petitioner was under severe financial crunch, yet the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- on 31st of March, 2011, and, thereafter, he paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 31st of March, 2012. A further payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- was also made in the year 2012. The petitioner, thereafter, requested the respondents to give him some breathing time so that the remainder could be liquidated as early as possible. Not satisfied with the assurance given by the petitioner that he had all the intentions to repay the amount and that it was only because of the circumstances beyond his control that the petitioner had not been able to adhere to the schedule of repayment, the respondent No. 3, vide a notice dated 25th of August, 2012,issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), called upon the petitioner to make the payment of a total amount of Rs. l,93,39,943/- within a period of 60 days. The petitioner challenged the said notice dated 25th of August, 2012, through the medium of a writ petition, being OWP No. 1534 of 2012, wherein this Court, vide order dated 8th of November, 2012, directed that on deposit of Rs. 20.00 lacs by the petitioner with the respondent-Bank within a period of eight weeks', the impugned notice dated 25th of August, 2012, issued by the respondent No. 3 shall stay. This period of eight weeks was further extended from time to time, but, ultimately, by an order dated 15th of April, 2013, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case titled “Santosh Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors.”, the petitioner was required to make a proposal for settlement under the ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’ to the respondents within a period of two months from 15th of April, 2013, and the Banking Company/Financial Institutions, including the respondents, had to consider the same and pass an appropriate order. Union of India & Ors.”, the petitioner was required to make a proposal for settlement under the ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’ to the respondents within a period of two months from 15th of April, 2013, and the Banking Company/Financial Institutions, including the respondents, had to consider the same and pass an appropriate order. It was also provided in the said order that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed and the order, if any, passed on the proposal made under ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’ be placed on record by the parties and all the matters, including the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing OWP No. 1534 of 2012, be listed with all the connected matters. Pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case titled “Santosh Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors.”, the petitioner applied to the respondent-Bank for ‘One Time Settlement’ of the loan amount standing against the petitioner, but the respondent-Bank, at that point of time, did not decide the representation of the petitioner and, in total disregard/ utter violation of the directions passed by this Court, the respondents suddenly sealed the property, i.e. plant & machinery and the factory constructed upon land measuring 16 marlas and 205 sfts., falling under Khasra No. 351 min situated at Nandini Sehora, Jammu. Aggrieved by the above said illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioner filed a CMP before this Court for the withdrawal of the public notice as well as the release of his property seized vide notice dated 29th of October, 2014, issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act and it was only, thereafter that the property seized by the respondent-Bank was regained by the petitioner. Thereafter, this Court decided the above said writ petitions in which it was held that the Act cannot be enforced in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the controversy in that regard was finally adjudicated upon and it was decided that the Act is binding and applicable to the residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir also. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the controversy in that regard was finally adjudicated upon and it was decided that the Act is binding and applicable to the residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir also. In the meantime, the respondent-Bank filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs.3,01,28,555/- against the petitioner and its Directors before the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu, in the month of March, 2015 and the petitioner, along with one of its Directors, namely, Jagdish Gir, filed the written statement and objections in answer to the said suit, which is still pending disposal before the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu and the next date of hearing in the said suit has been fixed on 17th of August, 2018. It is further pleaded that in the month of March, 20l7, the respondent-Bank again called the Director of the petitioner concern to New Delhi where a final settlement in respect of the outstanding loan in the name of the petitioner was arrived under the ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’, and the total one-time settlement amount was settled at Rs. 2.35 Crores and the payment schedule was fixed for six months from the date of conveying the ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’. The repayment schedule along with the amount was decided. It is pertinent to mention here that the above said settlement was reached between the respondent-Bank and the petitioner and the petitioner submitted the offer of ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’ to the respondent-Bank on 21st of March, 2017. Although, in the month of August 2017, the respondent Bank approved the ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’, yet the payment schedule was different than the one that was agreed to with the petitioner. The petitioner, however, deposited Rs. 5.00 lacs as token money to show his bona fide intentions of repaying the settled amount reached under the ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’ reckoned and calculated at Rs.2.35 crores. Thereafter, till date, an amount of Rs. 18.00 lacs in total was deposited by the petitioner in the aforesaid account of the respondent-Bank. Since the business of the petitioner did not flourish due to the devastating effect of the floods of the year 2014 on the economy of the State and due to multifarious conditions, the petitioner suffered losses and was not in a position to liquidate the outstanding amount, immediately. Since the business of the petitioner did not flourish due to the devastating effect of the floods of the year 2014 on the economy of the State and due to multifarious conditions, the petitioner suffered losses and was not in a position to liquidate the outstanding amount, immediately. The petitioner conveyed this position to the respondent-Bank, but the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, threatened the petitioner and told him that they will seize the property mortgaged with the bank by the petitioner and, thereafter, the respondent bank, without issuing any notice under the provisions of the Act, took over the possession of the mortgaged land to the tune of 03 kanals and 10 marlas comprising Khasra No. 4397/1332 situated at Village Tharakalwal, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua, which is owned and possessed by one of the Directors of the petitioner concern, namely, Sh. Jagdish Gir, with an intimation that the possession of the mortgaged property at New Delhi, i.e. Flat at First Floor, Block No. 74, Hari Nagar, Delhi, which is owned and possessed by Smt. Madhu Rawat (Guarantor) shall also be taken over. 3. The moot question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the same is, or is, not maintainable in the present form. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on that count and considered the material on record. 4. The law is that the purpose of serving a notice upon the borrower under Section 13 (2) of the Act is that a reply may be submitted by him explaining the reasons as to why measures may or may not be taken under Section 13 (4) of the Act, in case of non-compliance with the notice within 60 days. The creditor must apply its mind to the objections raised in reply to such a notice and an internal mechanism has to be evolved to consider such objections raised in the reply to the notice. Some meaningful consideration has to be accorded to the objections raised by the borrower rather than to ritually reject them and proceed to take drastic measures under Section 13 (4) of the Act. Some meaningful consideration has to be accorded to the objections raised by the borrower rather than to ritually reject them and proceed to take drastic measures under Section 13 (4) of the Act. Once a duty to meaningfully consider the objections raised by the borrower in reply to a notice under Section 13 (2) is envisaged on the part of the creditor, it would only be conducive to the principles of fairness, on the part of the banks and financial institutions in dealing with their borrowers, to apprise them of the reason for not accepting the objections or points raised in the reply to the notice served upon them before proceeding to take measures under Section 13 (4), especially, since, till the stage of making of the demand and notice under Section l3 (2) of the Act, no hearing can be claimed by the borrower. This remedy available to the borrower is envisioned under Section 13 (3A) of the Act which provides that if, on receipt of the notice under Sub-Section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower. The rider added to Section 13 (3A) provides that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or the Court of District Judge under Section 17(A) of the Act. A person in respect of whom steps under Section 13 (4) of the Act are likely to be taken cannot be denied the right to know the reasons of the non-acceptance of his objections. A person in respect of whom steps under Section 13 (4) of the Act are likely to be taken cannot be denied the right to know the reasons of the non-acceptance of his objections. Communications of reasons not to accept the objections of the borrower would certainly be for the purpose of his knowledge which would be a step forward towards his right to know why his objections have not been accepted by the secured creditors who intend to take resort to harsh steps of taking over the management/business of his secured assets, without the intervention of the Court, and would certainly provide guidance to secured debtors in general in conducting the affairs in a manner that they may not be found defaulting and being made liable for unsavory steps contained under Section 13 (4) of the Act. It will only be a fulfillment of a requirement of reasonableness and fairness in the dealings of the institutional financing which is so important from the point of view of the economy of the country and would serve the purpose in the growth of a healthy economy. It is not the case of the petitioner that he filed any representation in terms of Section 13 (3A) before the bank and the same was not considered by the respondents but the petitioner has taken shelter and refuge under and in terms of the “One Time Settlement Scheme” and the orders of this court passed from time to time the effect of which evaporates under the colour and shade of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court which will be referred to herein after. 5. Section 17 of the Act which is an additional safeguard gives a person including the borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Sub-Section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this Chapter, an option to make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. In view of the above scheme, the borrower could have made an application to the concerned Sessions Judge of the area holding the powers of Debts Recovery Tribunal in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as envisaged under Section 17(A) of the Act in case he had any objection against the action taken by the Bank. It is a remedy created under the statute and on the strength of such a scheme; the petitioner could have taken recourse to the said provision. 6. The petitioner, in the present case, has preferred the petition under Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court in Hameed Kunju v. Nazim (2017) 8 SCC 611 , held that the High Court not only erred in entertaining the petition under Article 227 but also erred in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction by interfering with the orders impugned therein. The Supreme Court also held that the High Court should have dismissed the petition in limine on the ground that since all the four orders impugned in the petition were amenable to their challenge before the appellate authority, the petition was not the proper remedy and the High Court should have declined to entertain the petition under Article 227 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of appeal and therefore, there was no reason much-less justifiable one for the High Court to have entertained the writ under Article 227. Having stated so, Section 103 or 104 of the State Constitution would leave little scope to interfere with an order as a matter of routine. The power cannot be taken as a right of another appeal to the aggrieved party. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to the High Court to entertain a petition either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Younus v. Mohd. Mustaqim AIR 1984 SC 38 , that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 if an alternative remedy is available. 7. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Younus v. Mohd. Mustaqim AIR 1984 SC 38 , that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 if an alternative remedy is available. 7. Looking at the petition of the petitioner from another perspective, the question whether the Act is or is not applicable to the residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, has been decided and determined by the Apex Court of the country on 16th of December, 2016, in Civil Appeal Nos. 12240-12246 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 30810-30815 & 30817 of 2015, wherein the Supreme Court, while setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court, held that the notices issued by the banks in terms of Section 13 of the Act and other coercive methods taken under the said Section are valid and can be proceeded with further. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act had been issued to the petitioner on the 25th of August, 2012, calling upon the petitioner to pay the entire amount of Rs. 1,93,39,943/- with further interest at the contracted rate until payment in fill within sixty days from the date of the notice, with a further stipulation that, in default, besides exercising other rights which are available with the Bank under law, the Bank is intending to exercise any or all of the powers as provided under Section 13(4) of the Act. The respondent Bank issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act on the 29th of October, 2014, and, thereafter, the mortgaged property was seized. The Apex Court of the Country delivered the judgment aforesaid on December 16th, 2016, holding that the notices issued by the Bank under Section 13 of the Act and other coercive methods taken under the Section are valid and can be proceeded further. Therefore, on the analogy and plain phraseology of the law laid down above the notices issued by the bank under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act are lawful and irrefutable and cannot be called in Question. 8. Viewed in the above context nothing survives in this petition which on the face of the judgment cited above buttressed with the above analysis is not maintainable. 8. Viewed in the above context nothing survives in this petition which on the face of the judgment cited above buttressed with the above analysis is not maintainable. Not only this as per his own admission, the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms of the ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’ offered to him by the Bank whereby a breathing space was given to him to liquidate the liability. The petition of the petitioner as such entails dismissal in limini and is accordingly dismissed.