ORDER 1. Heard through video conferencing. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying for following relief :- “(i) Declare the act of respondent bank of turning the petitioner's account as Non-performing Asset (NPA) as illegal and arbitrary; and/or (ii) Declare all the consequential acts arising out of the declaration of the petitioner's account as NPA as null and void; and/or (iii) Direct the respondent bank to refer the matter to the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) committee as per the mandate of framework for revival and rehabilitation of MSME's issued by the RBI on 17 March 2016 and adhere to the provisions of section 10 of MSMED Act, 2006; and/or (iv) Direct the respondent to abide by the RBI guidelines with respect to lending to MSMEs; and/or (v) Pass any other appropriate order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances.” 3. The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent/Bank without extending the benefit due to the petitioner Company under the RBI guidelines and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 has acted in an arbitrary and irrational manner by declaring the loan accounts of petitioner to be Non-Performing Asset (NPA). 4. The brief facts unfolded are that the petitioner/Company on 16.12.2015 was sanctioned loan of Rs. 8,85,52,000/- for manufacturing jaggery and jaggery powder. Further, on 28.9.2017 financial assistance under the Union Green Card/Kisan Credit Card to the tune of Rs. 55,63,000/- was extended. The Bank also extended the term loan of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- and cash credit limit of Rs.5,40,00,000/- on 12.12.2017. The said credit facilities were secured by way of submission of title deeds by creation of equitable mortgage against five pieces of immovable properties. 5. The petitioner failed to repay the loan in terms of agreement which impelled the respondent/Bank to classify the loan account as NPA in terms of RBI guidelines on 30.4.2019. 6. Thereafter on 8.5.2019 the respondent Bank issued notice u/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. The petitioner responded by letter dated 27.6.2019 seeking permission of the respondent Bank to sell a part of the mortgaged property for repaying the loan. By letter dated 26.9.2019 the Bank granted permission subject to the condition of depositing Rs.50,00,000/- within a month and the remaining amount of Rs.8,65,00,000/- within six months. The petitioner responded by letter dated 27.6.2019 seeking permission of the respondent Bank to sell a part of the mortgaged property for repaying the loan. By letter dated 26.9.2019 the Bank granted permission subject to the condition of depositing Rs.50,00,000/- within a month and the remaining amount of Rs.8,65,00,000/- within six months. When the said condition was not complied with in the given time period of six months, the Bank by letter dated 20.3.2020 reminded the petitioner Company of the said default since only Rs.61,50,000/- was deposited by the petitioner as against total dues of Rs.9,15,000/-. In response the petitioner Company by letter dated 25.3.2020 requested for extension of time for repayment of outstanding amount of loan within further six months by selling part of the mortgage property which the respondent Bank declined by letter dated 16.4.2020. Thereafter petitioner responded by letter dated 18.6.2020 that in case the permission sought by the petitioner for liquidating a part of the mortgaged property is not accorded then large number of farmers to whom the petitioner owes large sum of money for purchase of raw material, may stage an agitation. However, the respondent/Bank invoking the provision of section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act on 24.7.2020 obtained symbolic possession of mortgaged property. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank has further informed that presently the Bank has approached the District Magistrate Datia for invoking provision of section 14 of SARFAESI Act. 8. Learned counsel for the Bank Shri Surange also contends that the loan in question was sanctioned on 16.12.2015 whereas the petitioner manufacturing unit was registered under MSME Act on 1.3.2017 and thus the benefit under the said Act is not due to the petitioner. The financial assistance was not to a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises but to a unit in agricultural sector. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sardar Associates & ors. v. Punjab & Sind Bank & ors. [ (2009) 8 SCC 257 ] Para 42 to primarily contend that the respondent Bank is acting more like Shylock rather than instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that rehabilitatory and beneficial scheme of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 was wrongly declined to be extended in favour of petitioner. The beneficial guidelines for assisting defaulting debtors were not extended to the petitioner. 10. It is submitted that rehabilitatory and beneficial scheme of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 was wrongly declined to be extended in favour of petitioner. The beneficial guidelines for assisting defaulting debtors were not extended to the petitioner. 10. The challenge in this petition is to the action of respondent Bank in declaring the outstanding loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). A lot many arguments are raised on behalf of petitioner in regard to the alleged arbitrary action of the respondent bank of declaring the beneficial scheme of RBI guidelines and further negating the benefit flowing from the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 which is meant for rehabilitating medium scale industries which have defaulted in repaying their loans for reasons not attributed to them. 11. In the present case there are number of disputed questions of fact as regards applicability of rehabilitatory scheme, RBI guidelines etc. More so the petitioner failed to challenged the notice issued u/S.13 of SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). If the petitioner would have availed this statutory remedy then all these disputed questions of fact could have been raised before the Tribunal which is better equipped to deal with the same rather than the present Court in its limited writ jurisdiction. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has further objected to the maintainability of this petition on the ground of suppression of material fact of pendency of civil suit RCS A 321/20 (Vishal Lahariya v. Rajendra Kandele & ors.) filed by the Directors of the petitioner Company seeking a decree of partition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent Bank that it is a collusive suit filed to dislodge and derail the lawful proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. 13. Since the respondent Bank has availed the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act and the petitioner failed to avail the remedy available to it by approaching the DRT against the notice issued u/S. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, and further petitioner has remedy of appeal u/S. 17 of SARFAESI Act coupled with the fact of limited jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution, this Court declines to enter into merits of the matter. 14. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. Prashant Sharma for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent/Union of India, Praveen Surange for respondents No.5, 6 and 7/Bank.