ORDER 1. The petitioners, by way of present petition, seek quashment of auction notice dated 24.9.2019 and direction to the respondent-Bank to pass a reasoned order on the representation by the petitioner. 2. Evidently, the initiation of action against the petitioners is under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act, 2002'). In view of the law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 wherein it has been held : "42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No. 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under section 13(4) or action taken under section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under section 17(1). The expression `any person' used in section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under section 13(4) or section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective. 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislation enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute." 3. We are not inclined to entertain the relief as has been sought. Instead, the petitioners are set at liberty to take recourse to section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for redressal of the grievance. 4. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms.