ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 08.11.2017 issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) by reason of which the petitioner has been directed to repay the amount of Rs.9,56,624/- against the loan taken by him within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice with a further direction to the petitioner not to deal with the mortgaged property. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for realization of the said loan amount, the respondent no. 4 filed requisition before the Certificate Officer, Jamshedpur for recovery of Rs. 9,43,848/- including the court fee, which has been registered as Certificate Case no. 352/BL/16-17. Thus, the respondent-Bank cannot proceed for recovery of the same loan amount by way of two different proceedings i.e. by filing requisition for initiating certificate proceeding and also by taking recourse of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [in short to be referred as “the SARFAESI Act”]. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, at the very outset, submits that the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 08.11.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (in short “the Rule, 2002”). The petitioner has got efficacious/statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the said notice by way of filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 08.11.2017 issued by the respondent no.3 exercising the powers conferred under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with rule 8 of the Rules, 2002. The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by issuance of the said notice dated 08.11.2017 on the ground that the respondent Bank has simultaneously proceeded for recovery of the same loan amount by way of two different proceedings. 5. Be that as it may. The petitioner has the alternative/statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the action of the respondent-Bank taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1281 of 2018 (Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. 5. Be that as it may. The petitioner has the alternative/statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the action of the respondent-Bank taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1281 of 2018 (Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C.) while discussing the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters, has held as under: “16. It is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law stands well settled. Any departure, if permissible, has to be for reasons discussed, of the case falling under a defined exception, duly discussed after noticing the relevant law. In financial matters grant of ex-parte interim orders can have a deleterious effect and it is not sufficient to say that the aggrieved has the remedy to move for vacating the interim order. Loans by financial institutions are granted from public money generated at the tax payers expense. Such loan does not become the property of the person taking the loan, but retains its character of public money given in a fiduciary capacity as entrustment by the public. Timely repayment also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need, by circulation of the money and cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same. The caution required, as expressed in Satyawati Tandon (supra), has also not been kept in mind before passing the impugned interim order:- “46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which (sic will) ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order.” 17. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference.” 6. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has got efficacious/statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act against the notice dated 08.11.2017 issued by the respondent no.3 exercising power under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with rule 8 of the Rules, 2002, I am not inclined to exercise the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law, as provided under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.