JUDGMENT N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. - This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned Notice dated 10.02.2020 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent No.1 Bank. 2. The substance of the petition is that on 27.06.2019 the 1st respondent M/s. Bank of Baroda Erstwhile M/s. Vijaya Bank, issued a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) read with rule 3 of Security Interest (Enforcement Rule) 2002 for recovery of Rs.4,92,22,143.70. On 14.10.2019 the 1st respondent filed Crl. Misc. No.4798/2019 in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru for taking physical possession of the property and on 07.11.2019 the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru passed an order to obtain possession of the property based on the memo filed by the respondents. On 10.02.2020 the 1st respondent issued notice of sale of immovable property to the borrower under Rule 8(5) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002 and stated in the notice that, the outstanding balance is Rs.4,04,10,588.75. The petitioner submits that, though the law mandates him to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), but the Tribunal is not functioning due to on going lockdown for COVID-19 therefore, he is compelled to approach this Court. 3. The main crux of the submission is that the petitioner - Nisargalaya Drug Unit Pvt. Ltd., has obtained financial assistance from respondent No.1 by mortgaging the residential property bearing Nos. 9 and 10 Fortune Valley, Mariamanapalya, H.A. Pharma Post, near Limbini Garden, Bengaluru-560 024, which is consisting of 10,000 square feet which also consists of residential site with a house constructed with around 2520 square feet. The borrowing of loan by the petitioner from the 1st respondent is not in dispute, nor the exhibition of document in favour of the Bank for creating the mortgage of the property stated above. The issue of notice dated 31.05.2019 Annexure-A is admitted. Further, filing of Criminal Misc. No.4798/2019 dated 14.10.2019 is also not in dispute and the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 07.11.2019 produced Annexure-B is also not in dispute. 4. Learned counsel Sri Diwakara K., for the petitioner would submit that the order dated 07.11.2019 is not in accordance with law, wherein the possession is ordered to be handed over to the Commission. It is submitted that it is against law. 5. 4. Learned counsel Sri Diwakara K., for the petitioner would submit that the order dated 07.11.2019 is not in accordance with law, wherein the possession is ordered to be handed over to the Commission. It is submitted that it is against law. 5. Sri K.V. Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for Bank of Baroda would submit that the Bank has taken the physical possession of the property on 12.11.2019. He would further submit that the copy of the document was served only on Saturday and hence, he could not file the statement in writing. However, the very respondent No.1 represented by the learned counsel has gone on record submitting that the physical possession of the schedule property is already taken. 6. It is in respect of a mortgaged loan for the amount of Rs.4,92,22,143.70. Executing of mortgage, liability default are admitted. 7. Section 14 of the Securitization And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 reads as under: "14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.- (1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him- (a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and (b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor. [(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,- i. to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto; and ii. to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.] (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub- section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.] (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub- section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate (any officer authorized by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate) done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority." 8. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he could not present his grievance before the DRT as it is closed. 9. In this connection, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent has made it clear that DRT is opened and functioning. At this time, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of filing of writ petition, the DRT was closed due to pandemic. 10. The date of order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is 07.11.2019. In this connection Section 17 of the SURFAESI Act is necessary to be perused, which is as under: "17. Right to appeal. (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, [may 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: (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (3) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the management of the secured assets to the borrower or restoration of possession of the secured assets to the borrower, it may by order, declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured assets as invalid and restore the possession of the secured assets to the borrower or restore the management of the secured assets to the borrower, as the case may be, and pass such order as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13. (4) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures specified under sub-section (4) of section l3 to recover his secured debt. (5) Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1). (6) If the application is not disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as specified in sub-section (5), any party to the application may make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, on such application, make an order for expeditious disposal of the pending application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. (7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of application in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and the rules made thereunder." 11. Thus the option of resorting remedy was available to the petitioner to approach DRT within 45 days from the date of the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Regard being had to the fact date of order is 07.11.2019. When the pandemic lock down came into effect from 24.03.2020, by the time, the time limit prescribed for approaching the DRT had expired by more than three months. Under the circumstances, pandemic lock down for COVID-19 cannot be a platform for reliance by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.