ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. The appellant - original respondent No. 2 has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 for seeking correction of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.9.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 13402 of 2019. 2. The background of fact which has given rise to present Letters Patent Appeal is that respondent No. 1 herein - original petitioner had invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 300A of the Constitution of India for seeking a declaration that the property in question was never mortgaged by original debtor not the property was ever subjected to mortgage, resultantly the same is not to be subject to any encumbrance or even second charge and has also prayed to hold that it is an absolute property of the original petitioner. The relief clause containing Para. 16 is reproduced hereinafter: "A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding and declaring that the property was never mortgaged by the original debtor nor the property was ever subject to mortgage and therefore, by all impugned transfers, the property has finally devolved without any encumbrance upon the present petitioner and be further pleased to declare that the property is not subject to any encumbrance or second charge and be further pleased to hold that it is an absolute property of the petitioner. B. Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call upon the respondents herein or giving a clean chit to the property or by certifying that there was never any encumbrance nor any encumbrance/mortgage was ever created on the property. C. The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct GIIC to handover the Title Deeds as per FIRST SCHEDULE of Memorandum of entries dated 25.03.1991 as mentioned in Para No. 12 of this petition. D. Such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and expedient be passed in favour of the petitioner. E. Costs of this petition be provided for the petitioner." 2.1. D. Such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and expedient be passed in favour of the petitioner. E. Costs of this petition be provided for the petitioner." 2.1. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 herein that one property - Shade bearing No. A/2/208 located in GIDC, Sarigam Estate which was originally allotted by GIDC to one M/s. Maheshwari Poly Spin Pvt. Ltd. way back on 16.2.1991. The said company had sought financial assistance in the form of term loan for plant and machinery to the extent of Rs. 90 lakhs from GIIC and for working capital from Bank of Baroda, Thakurdwar Branch, Mumbai. Before the said industrial plot numbered above was transferred, according to the original petitioner, there was already a settlement with GIIC since GIIC with which the said shed was mortgaged by creating a first charge over it. But, then, upon full and final settlement, the property over which the charge was created, the same was discharged and thereafter, there was no second charge created. It has been the case of respondent No. 1 herein that surprisingly, the steps have been taken by way of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by the International Asset Recovery Cell (IARC) but, in spite of the orders passed by the Bombay High Court, the proceedings were never dropped and respondent No. 1 herein is unnecessarily dragged into litigation. 2.2. It is further the case of the respondent No. 1 that said shed No. A/2/208 admeasuring 2254 sq. mtrs. was already discharged from encumbrance since entire liability towards the said shed was cleared and discharged before November, 2006 and the NOC was also issued by GIIC. However, according to the respondent No. 1 herein, a mistake is committed by making a wrong statement in a communication dated 7.5.1992 that there was a second charge over the property. After obtaining NOC, the said shed/plot was sold on 3.1.2006 and transferred in favour of M/s. K.R. Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd. and then, said M/s. K.R. Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd. transferred the same in favour of M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and the GIDC had issued transfer order in favour of M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. on 15.2.2008. 2.3. Said M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had taken a loan from Saraswat bank to the tune of Rs. 3.11 crores. 2.3. Said M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had taken a loan from Saraswat bank to the tune of Rs. 3.11 crores. But, before the transfer of M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in favour of original petitioner, the whole debt was cleared and No Due Certificate was also obtained by said M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. from Saraswat bank and it is only after that a public notice was issued in a daily newspaper for purchasing of the very property from M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. by the original petitioner. Subsequently, the Assignment Deed was also executed on 9.3.2012 and the GIDC, based upon it, also transferred this shed in favour of present respondent No. 1 herein. 2.4. It is further the case of respondent No. 1 herein that thereafter, 2R permission was also granted as per the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed on 31.3.2012 with regard to the Revenue Survey No. 23/P, over which the aforesaid shed is constructed. 2.5. Surprisingly, after the said transfer in favour of present respondent No. 1 - original petitioner, the present appellant had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act somewhere in the month of June, 2015 by affixation over the property, though this shed in question had no second charge or mortgage by any of the previous owners. Had there been so, neither the GIIC nor the GIDC would have accorded permission for such transfer. By referring to the observations made in the decision delivered by the Bombay High Court in Civil Suit No. 1902 of 1997 filed by the Bank of Baroda against M/s. Maheshwari Poly Spin Pvt. Ltd. and others - the first occupier of the plot/shade in question, in which the Notice of Motion was also taken out by the Bank of Baroda bearing No. 3008 of 1997 for the purpose of enforcement of security and to recover the amount. In the said proceedings, it was observed by the Bombay High Court that in respect of second charge, there is no prima facie case or evidence shown by the bank, resultantly it was clearly observed by the Bombay High Court in the said decision that,' it is not possible to accept the contention of the plaintiff about the property being covered by second charge.' Resultantly, the ad-interim order dated 10.10.1997 appointing the court receiver in respect of these property in question, was set aside. 2.6. 2.6. It has further been asserted by respondent No. 1 herein that pursuant to the decision delivered by the Bombay High Court, the proceedings were transferred to DRT, Mumbai which was renumbered as Original Application No. 643 of 2001 and the final order of DRT-II dated 24.2.2003 has appointed receiver in place of court receiver and had stated that defendant No. 5 shall pay to the applicant the surplus amount, if any, from sale proceeds of defendant's Plot No. A/2/208 of GIDC, Sarigam Industrial Estate, 396155, District Valsad. In respect of residential properties, though respondent No. 1 herein is not concerned about it, resultantly insofar as the present plot in question, the respondent No. 1 herein has clearly indicated that there was no communication whatsoever with M/s. Maheshwari Poly Spin Pvt. Ltd. and hence, the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was replied by letter dated 6.8.2015. It has further been asserted by respondent No. 1 herein that the property in question came to be purchased from M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and prior to purchase, the objections were called for by way of issuing public advertisement and since there was no objection at all from any corner including the Saraswat bank and the search which was carried out revealed no obligatory remarks even from the Bank of Baroda, Andheri Branch. Resultantly, this very bank i.e. Bank of Baroda has given financial assistance to the tune of 6.2 crores and the respondent No. 1 herein had also obtained 2R permission from GIDC. Thus, in all respects, the bank has never raised any claim for second charge and as such, when the proceedings were initiated, the respondent No. 1 before DRT, Ahmedabad has submitted an objection application which came to be decided on 31.5.2019 being TRP/RC/39/2012. It was pointed out that respondent No. 1 being the third-party was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice in respect of shed in question and it is clearly asserted that the property in question was never mortgaged. Though the DRT, Ahmedabad has accepted that there was no mortgage of the property, still, however, no declaration is given to that effect, the respondent No. 1 - original petitioner found that title seem to be not absolutely clear though objections are allowed and as such, by producing several documents attached to the petition compilation, the aforesaid interim relief is sought. 2.7. 2.7. Said petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge and on 16.9.2019, the learned Single Judge was pleased to partly allow the petition after hearing all the parties to approve his sanity is order passed by the learned single judge is made this subject matter of present letters patent appeal before us. The operative part of the order of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereinafter: "16. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The respondent No. 1 has no right to hold on to the original title deeds as per the First Schedule of Memorandum of Entries dated 25-03-1991 pertaining to original allotment letter, original conveyance deed and original lease agreement of Plot No. A/2/208 located at GIDC, Sarigam Industrial Estate, in custody of respondent No. 1 therefore, be released. The petitioner shall continue to hold such original title deeds which will of course be subject to the final outcome of suit/recovery proceedings, if any filed or pending by respondent No. 2, against Maheshwari Polyspin Pvt. Ltd. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs." 3. Ms. Nalini S. Lodha, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that though there was a clear case made out by the appellant that the plot in question held by the original petitioner is subject to encumbrance, for which the steps under the SARFAESI Act have been initiated and despite overwhelming evidence, the learned Single Judge has not believed the case of the appellant and as such, the order deserves to be corrected. It has further been contended that originally, the demand notice was already in existence way back in 2003 and despite the said notice having been in existence, the transfer has taken place and as such, no better title deserves to be transferred in favour of original petitioner. It has further been contended that against the order, there is a specific remedy of appeal provided and as such, it is settled position of law that when a specific statutory remedy is available, normally the extraordinary jurisdiction may not be exercised. For canvassing this submission, learned counsel has drawn the attention to Section 13 of the Act and pointed out that there is a clear contention raised in affidavit by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. 3.1. For canvassing this submission, learned counsel has drawn the attention to Section 13 of the Act and pointed out that there is a clear contention raised in affidavit by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. 3.1. It has further been contended that though it was a submission of original petitioner that second charge was not created in the manner in which it has to be created. But then there was a clear consent letter written by GIIC reflecting about the second charge over the property in question. When that be so, instead of examining the said stand here in the extraordinary jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the original petitioner to appropriate fact finding forum created by the Statute. 3.2. It has further been submitted that the petition which had been brought, is not further maintainable in view of the fact that M/s. Maheshwari Poly Spin Pvt. Ltd. has never been joined in the petition and, therefore, the very crucial party has not been joined in the proceedings and as such, the petition itself was not maintainable as suffering from the vice of non-joinder of necessary party. It has further been contended that the property in question could not have been transferred since there was a definite demand notice which was in existence and it was served to the principal debtor and still, the original petitioner has shown an audacity to purchase and as such, his title cannot be said to be clear. On the contrary, he cannot be termed as a bona fide purchaser, as well. By referring to Page-113 of the petition compilation, a contention is raised that a specific detailed order is passed by DRT-II, Ahmedabad dated 31.5.2019 and as such, if the reasons which are shown if to be looked into in comparison with a letter written by GIIC at Page-134, there is hardly any case made out by the respondent No. 1 herein to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. On the contrary, such issues of examination of facts ought to have been relegated before appropriate fact finding forum instead of certifying the title of original petitioner. It has further been contended that on the contrary, no writ was maintainable since the appellant is not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the same being a private entity, the petition was not maintainable. It has further been contended that on the contrary, no writ was maintainable since the appellant is not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the same being a private entity, the petition was not maintainable. All these issues have not been properly gone into by the learned Single Judge. As a result of this, the order in question deserves to be corrected by quashing and setting aside the same. 3.3. It has further been asserted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no answer given by the original petitioner as to how the transaction took place without the original title deeds. As a result of this, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not just and proper and the same being not a valid decision, by granting the relief as prayed for in this Letters Patent Appeal, the order be set aside. 3.4. To substantiate her submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court: (1) Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, reported in (2001) (0) GLHEL-SC-21722. (2) Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors., decided on 3.12.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11759 of 2018. (3) Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Ors. v. Mathew K.C., reported in AIR 2018 676; and (4) ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Umakanta Mohapatra, reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-SC-63224. 4. As against this, Shri M.B. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 - original petitioner, has vehemently contended that the entire stand by the appellant is ill-founded in view of the fact that before purchasing the property in question from M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd., a public notice was given inviting objections in the year 2012; the same were never objected by any party. Resultantly, by paying huge amount, the original petitioner had entered into transaction and became the bona fide purchaser. It is surprising to note - as stated by learned Senior Counsel - that despite 4 transactions has taken place in between, the bank has never filed any objection nor any resistance is shown and as such, when the clear property after removing all encumbrances over it, is purchased by the original petitioner, it is not open for the appellant to raise any grievance. On the contrary, the GIIC had no authority at all to write a letter that second charge is in existence. In fact, there is no iota of evidence reflecting the same. Therefore, on the basis of some mistake or mischief on the part of officer of GIIC, if such kind of assertion is made, the same would not create any legal right in favour of appellant to proceed ahead with property over which there was no mortgage nor any second charge. 4.1. Shri M.B. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel, has further submitted that on the contrary, this very GIIC has given a specific NOC and the sale has been recognized by GIDC and surprisingly, the suit which was filed between GIIC and M/s. Maheshwari Poly Spin Pvt. Ltd. was withdrawn and only upon such, the property in question is purchased. It has further been contended that there is a clear finding by the Bombay High Court in the original proceedings that there is no iota of evidence by virtue of which the bank has established that there is any second charge over the property in question. It has further been submitted that when there is such judicial pronouncement by the Bombay High Court, there is hardly any stand available for the appellate to agitate. 4.2. Shri M.B. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel, has further submitted that when all these circumstances are clearly noted down by the learned Single Judge, the order is perfectly justified in the eye of law and in the absence of any perversity and/or matter irregularity of any nature, the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not deserve to be interfered with. Additionally, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that so far as the alternative remedy is concerned, said remedy is a rule of convenience and apparently, when the property in question was never subject matter of charge, there was no question of invoking the provision of the SARFAESI Act over the property and apparently, when that be visible it is always open for the High Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. 4.3. 4.3. It has further been contended that the main relief which has been sought is not against the present appellant and, therefore, on the contrary, the appeal at the instance of appellant itself is not maintainable and when that be so, the question of raising plea about non-joinder, about alternative remedy are insignificant in the present background of facts. Shri M.B. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel, has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision reported in 2008 (1) GLH 511 to strengthen his submission and ultimately has prayed that this Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merit, the same deserves to be dismissed with costs. 5. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the learned Single Judge has examined the issue about the second charge, as well and categorically found that there is no evidence brought by the original petitioner to establish the existence of second charge over the shed in question. So much so it has been specifically noted down that M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. who took the loan over the shed from Saraswat bank, the said loan has already been paid; No Due Certificate issued by the bank and it is only after that a public notice in the daily newspaper came to be issued and then, the deed has been executed. 6. It further appears that even the observations made by the Bombay High Court with respect to this shed in question, has also made it clear that the bank has failed to establish the plea of second charge over the plot in question and there was merely a bald assertion with no other material to substantiate. Said observations which have been made in Notice of Motion No. 3008 of 1997 reflecting in an order dated 11.9.1998 before the Bombay High Court has been narrated and taken in aid and in addition thereto, the detailed observations from order of the Tribunal dated 24.2.2003 in Original Application No. 634 of 2000 has been taken into consideration and from the overall material, it was noticed by the learned Single Judge that creation of charge requires a detailed procedure which has not been undertaken so far and by referring to such issue, a clear conclusion is arrived at, which indicates that there is hardly any case made out by the appellant. The relevant observations contained in Para. The relevant observations contained in Para. 12, 13 and 14 of the order of the learned Single Judge since relevant, we deem it proper to reproduce below: "12. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the respondent No. 2 and or its predecessors were entitled only to the extent to receive their share received by GIIC. This direction in the opinion of the Court does not lead to automatic creation of second charge of respondent No. 2. In any case, creation of charge requires following of certain procedures which does not appear to have taken place in the present case in connection with factory shed. The Court is also inclined to consider the order passed on 31-05-2019 in TRP/RC No. 39/2012 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, wherein in its order has observed as under: "19. Now matter needs to be investigated whether the present TPO has done all the due diligence before getting into the ownership of property In question. The material is on record which may show that after settlement of dues with GIIC in the year 1999, CD No. 2 has transferred the property in question to one M/s. K.R. Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2006 who in turn further transferred the property in the name of M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and relied upon the Office Order dated 15.02.2008 issued by the GIDC stating that the aforesaid property which was in the name of M/s. K.R. Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., now stands transferred to M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vide permission letter dated 25.01.2008. It is also on record that M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. thereafter taken loan from Saraswat Bank for which necessary charge was registered with the GIDC. M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in order to further transfer the property, cleared the dues of Saraswat Bank. Accordingly, Saraswat Bank issued 'No Dues Certificate' and also wrote a letter to the GIDC for cancelling their charge registered with them. 'No Dues Certificate' dated 11.01.2012, letter of even date to GIDC for cancellation of their charge and another letter dated 11.01.2012 issued by the GIDC Sarigram to GIDC Vapi regarding issuance of no dues of water and drainage charges are available on record. 'No Dues Certificate' dated 11.01.2012, letter of even date to GIDC for cancellation of their charge and another letter dated 11.01.2012 issued by the GIDC Sarigram to GIDC Vapi regarding issuance of no dues of water and drainage charges are available on record. Record further shows that at this stage, the present TPO entered into an agreement for sale dated 12.01.2012 with M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and same was duly notarized and also relied upon another 'No Dues Certificate' issued by Saraswat Bank. Record also reveals that TPO got search before the GIDC and other revenue record and also published an advertisement in the newspaper i.e. Gujarat Samachar published on 20.02.2012 inviting objections as to anyone having charge over the said property and when no charge of any other party was found with GIDC, revenue record and also no objections received in response to publication dated 20.02.2012, the TPO entered into a Deed of Conveyance with M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. on 09.03.2012. Further Sarigam Industries Association issued an NOC dated 13.03.2012 and M/s. G.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and also wrote a letter dated 17.03.2012 alongwith a demand draft to Regional Manager, GIDC, Vapi for final transfer of property. Further in view of completion of entire formalities, GIDC issued an Office Order dated 27.03.2012 transferring the property in question in the name of present Third Party. This fact has also been brought on record that with a view to expand the business, the third party obtained the loan from Bank of Baroda, Andheri (E) Branch, Mumbai. Accordingly, GIDC granted necessary permission dated 31.03.2012 and accordingly said bank is having charge over the property in question. Thus, from the perusal of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation to observe that the TPO has left no stone untouched to ensure that the property in question is free from all encumbrances and obtained all no objections from the concerned authorities issued from time to time. Hence I do not find any lapse on the part of TPO with regard to ensuring that the property was free from all charges, liens etc. at the time of getting into the ownership of the property. Thus, TPO is bonafide purchaser for value without notice." 13. Hence I do not find any lapse on the part of TPO with regard to ensuring that the property was free from all charges, liens etc. at the time of getting into the ownership of the property. Thus, TPO is bonafide purchaser for value without notice." 13. Though such order may be subject matter of challenge, but with this findings, the Court is inclined to believe the petitioner is entitled to receive title deeds from the respondent No. 1 and that the respondent No. 1 being the Government corporation has no right to hold on to title deeds under garb of so called second charge of respondent No. 2. 14. In absence of anything on record to establish the second charge of respondent No. 2 on the factory shed neither the respondent No. 1 nor the respondent No. 2 have been able to produce on record any document on which the respondent No. 2 can base his claim for second charge. So called the agreement dated 07-05-1992, which confirms the basis for claim of second charge, reference to which is made by the respondent No. 1 in its communication dated 17th May, 2012 to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., has not come on record either on behalf of the respondent No. 1 or the respondent No. 2." 7. On the basis of the aforesaid observations, when it was unequivocally found by the learned Single Judge to consider the case of the original petitioner, the directions have been issued in Para. 16 and the equity is also balanced between the two which is evidently clear from the operative part of the order. On the basis of overall consideration of material placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that no error seem to have been committed by the learned Single Judge. As a result of this, since no case is made out, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 8. Consequently, Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 also stands disposed of.