JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the nationalised banks/private financial institutions challenging the notices issued either under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation And Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as "SARFAESI Act, 2002") or under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 2. Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of these writ petitions as an alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no factual dispute in these matters and the petitioners have filed these writ petitions as the respondent-financial institutions are not following the R.B.I. Guidelines. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-bank/financial institutions are not obeying the guidelines of R.B.I. with regard to moratorium. Counsel further submits that there is no remedy available to them challenging the notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 4. In support of their contentions, counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the matter of Transcon Skycity Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. ICICI Bank and Ors., Writ Petition LD-VC No.28 of 2020 decided on 11.04.2020 where in para 9 of 14 it has been held as under:- "14. ............. ...9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered their respective submissions, I am of the view that the protection sought to be availed of by the plaintiffs by virtue of the RBI circulars would clearly apply to all amounts due after 1st March 2020. In the instant case, the plaintiffs were liable to pay Rs. 1.71 crores as of 12th January 2020. There is no doubt that defendant no. 1 has a vested right to sell the pledged shares. The sale of shares at this moment would appear to be prompted by anxiety to recover the amount of Rs. 1.71 crores that is overdue from the plaintiffs. 1.71 crores as of 12th January 2020. There is no doubt that defendant no. 1 has a vested right to sell the pledged shares. The sale of shares at this moment would appear to be prompted by anxiety to recover the amount of Rs. 1.71 crores that is overdue from the plaintiffs. In view of the willingness of the plaintiffs to regularize the account and considering the fact that the RBI has clearly opined that the moratorium can be granted for three months on payment of all installments, it would appear that it is only the installments falling due between 1st March 2020 and 31st May 2020 that are contemplated under the Covid-19 Regulatory Package, as seen from paragraph 2 of RBI Circular dated 27th March 2020, annexed at Exhibit- DD to the plaint. The Press Release dated 27th March 2020 on 'Statement of Developmental and Regulatory Policies' seems to suggest that moratorium would apply in respect of payment of installments of terms loans outstanding "as of 1st March 2020". That would seem to include even the amounts due to the 1st defendant from the plaintiffs in this suit but the Statement of Developmental and Regulatory Policies is only a Press Release setting out the policies to address stress in financial conditions caused by Covid-19. They do not constitute the directions to the banks." 5. Counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021, decided on 24.09.2021 where in para 24 it has been held as under:- "24. The issues raised by the Appellant are questions of law which require, upon a comprehensive reading of the Bihar Electricity Act, a determination of whether tax can be levied on the supply of electricity by a power generator (which also manufactures sugar) supplying electricity to a distributor; and whether the first Respondent has the legislative competence to levy duty on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor in view of the decision of this Court in State of AP (supra). The question of whether the Appellant is liable to file returns Under Sections 6B(1) and 5A of the Act is directly related to the issue of whether the sale of electricity by the Appellant to BSEB falls under the charging provisions of Section 3(1). The question of whether the Appellant is liable to file returns Under Sections 6B(1) and 5A of the Act is directly related to the issue of whether the sale of electricity by the Appellant to BSEB falls under the charging provisions of Section 3(1). The questions raised by the Appellant can be adjudicated without delving into any factual dispute. Thus, the present matter is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court." 6. Counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Premier Printing Press & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.3677 and 3678 of 2015, decided on 23.02.2017, where in para No.25 it has been held as under:- "25. There are thus these seven well recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, which can be culled out from the afore discussed judgments of the Supreme Court, firstly where the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; secondly where there has been violation of principle of natural justice; thirdly where the order of proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction; fourthly where the vires of any Act is under challenge; fifthly where availing of alternative remedy subjects a person to very lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment; sixthly where the writ petition can be entertained despite alternative remedy if the question raised is purely legal one, there being no dispute on facts and seventhly, where State or its intermediary in a contractual matter acts against public good/interest unjustly, unfairly and arbitrarily." 7. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Subramanya Construction and Development Company Limited v. Union Bank of India Writ Petition No.6710 of 2020, decided on 05.08.2020 where in para 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 it has been held as under:- "9. Adverting to the factual aspects, this Court finds that the respondent-Bank is making contradictory statements. Adverting to the factual aspects, this Court finds that the respondent-Bank is making contradictory statements. On the one hand, it is contended that the petitioner-Company was overdue in paying instalments for the month of January and February 2020 and therefore, it is contended that as per the IRAC Guidelines of the RBI, the petitioner's account is required to be classified as Special Mention Account-2 and in the normal course, if there was failure on the part of the petitioner to pay instalment for the month of March 2020, its account would be classified as Non-performing Asset (NPA), at the beginning of April 2020. On the other hand, it is contended that there is steady cash flow in the escrow account of the Company. The fact that the Bank has deducted the EMIs is evidenced by a prayer made by the petitioner to direct the respondent to release all such amounts received by the respondent as EMIs between the period 1st of March to 31st of May 2020. 10. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the outbreak of novel Coronavirus came to light during the fag end of the year 2019, that is the reason why the virus is named COVID- 19. The impact of COVID-19 in the global market commenced from January 2020. Having studied the spread and impact of COVID-19, the Government of India invoked the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and by order dated 24.03.2020 announced various measures, including a lockdown. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Velankani Information (supra), has elaborately dealt with the measures taken by the Government of India and the consequent actions of the RBI, including issuance of the press release dated 27.03.2020 outlining various development and regulatory policies to address the stress in the financial condition caused by N-COVID-19 so as to ease the financial stress. The co-ordinate Bench, having considered the rival contentions and noticing the RBI Circular dated 27.03.2020, in depth, held that the Circular dated 27.03.2020 is discretionary insofar as the power to grant moratorium or not by a Bank, however, it is mandatory for the bank to ensure the continuity of viable businesses, in that, the non-grant of a moratorium should not result in adversely affecting the survival and continuity of a viable business. 11. 11. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Anant Raj Ltd. (supra) dealt with the question as to whether the benefit of moratorium announced by RBI could be extended to an account which was classified as Special Mention Account-1 (SMA-1) and Special Mention Account-2 (SMA-2). Having regard to Clause-5 of the statement of development regulatory policy dated 27.03.2020 and foot note-1 therein, it was held that "reading of the Statement on Development and Regulatory Policies issued by RBI on 27th March 2020 along with Regulatory Package issued on March 27, 2020 prima facie shows that the intention of the RBI is to maintain status quo as on 01.03.2020 with regard to all the instalments payment for which had to be made post 01.03.2020 till 31.05.2020". 12. As regards classification of accounts, while adverting to paragraphs-5 to 7 of the Regulatory Package, it was held that it is the intention of RBI to maintain status quo with regard to the classification of accounts of the borrowers as they existed as on 01.03.2020. This Court is in respectful agreement with the decisions of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Velankani Information (supra) and Anant Raj Ltd. (supra) of the Delhi High Court. 13. In the light of the admitted fact that the respondent-Bank has withdrawn the amounts from the escrow account towards EMIs from the month of January 2020 till 30.04.2020, when an interim order was passed by this Court, question of classifying the petitioner- Company as NPA, would not arise. As noticed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the Delhi High Court, the intention of RBI in issuing the Circular and policy is to protect a viable business from the adverse impact of N- COVID-19. The petitioner-Company is in the business of property development, agriculture and allied activities, involving several thousands of workers and employees. The contention of the petitioner that the N-COVID- 19 pandemic has had an adverse impact on its business and it is facing severe crunch of cash- flow, cannot be ignored on the premise that there is a steady flow of lease rentals into the escrow account of the petitioner-Company. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the present case stands on a different footing when compared to the case of Velankani Information (supra) and therefore the petitioner should not be given the benefit of moratorium, cannot be accepted. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the present case stands on a different footing when compared to the case of Velankani Information (supra) and therefore the petitioner should not be given the benefit of moratorium, cannot be accepted. The petitioner in Velankani Information (supra) had borrowed money through a consortium of Banks. Merely because the petitioner herein does not seem to have borrowed through a consortium of Banks, it does not disentail him from seeking the benefit of moratorium. As rightly observed earlier, the intention of RBI in issuing the Circular and policy is to protect a viable business from the onslaught of the global pandemic. On the other hand, if the petitioner is prevented from utilizing the lease rentals towards funding its business, the entire business of the petitioner-Company would collapse." 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that a complete mechanism has been provided under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 with regard to proposed actions to be taken against the borrowers when they failed to repay the loan amount. Counsel further submits that the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the notices issued under Sections 13(2) & 13 (4) of the Act of 2002 as the statutory remedy of appeal is available under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against both types of notices. 9. In support of the contentions, counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Imperial Gift House and Another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 622 where in paras 2, 3 & 4 it has been held as under:- "2. By the impugned order, in effect and substance, the High Court has quashed notice issued by the bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, [for short, "the Act"]. 3. Upon receipt of notice, the respondents filed representation under Section 13(3)(A) of the Act, which was rejected. Thereafter, before any further action could be taken under Section 13(4) of the Act by the Bank, the writ petition was filed before the High Court. 4. 3. Upon receipt of notice, the respondents filed representation under Section 13(3)(A) of the Act, which was rejected. Thereafter, before any further action could be taken under Section 13(4) of the Act by the Bank, the writ petition was filed before the High Court. 4. In our view, the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition against the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act and quashing the proceedings initiated by the bank." 10. Counsel for the respondents further relied upon the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the matter of M.Sivanandam v. The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India decided on 19 December, 2016 reported in 2016 SCC Online Mad 32897 where in para Nos.2 & 3 it has been held as under:- "2. Notice under Section 13(2) is only a demand made by the Bank and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India reported in AIR 2004 SC 2371 : 2004(4) SCC 311 has held that notice under Section 13(2) would not give rise to a cause to challenge. However, as per Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, if, on receipt of the notice under sub section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower: PROVIDED that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District Judge under section 17A. 3. In the light of the above decision and the statutory provision, writ of certiorari, cannot be issued to quash the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. 11. Counsel for the respondents further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Umakanta Mohapatra and Ors. reported in (2019) 13 SCC 497 where in para Nos.2 & 3 it has been held as under:- "2. 11. Counsel for the respondents further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Umakanta Mohapatra and Ors. reported in (2019) 13 SCC 497 where in para Nos.2 & 3 it has been held as under:- "2. Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non- Performing Assets (NPAs). 3. The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows: (SCC p.94, para 17) "17. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., observing: (SCC p.463, para 32) 32 . When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops.' " 12. Counsel for the respondents further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of C. Bright v. The District Collector and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 392 where in para No.22 it has been held as under:- "22 . Even though, this Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon held that 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 will ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Even though, this Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon held that 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 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. Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. has held that the remedy of an aggrieved person by a secured creditor under the Act is by way of an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, however, borrowers and other aggrieved persons are invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court Under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative statutory remedy. The Hon'ble High Courts are well aware of the limitations in exercising their jurisdiction when affective alternative remedies are available, but a word of caution would be still necessary for the High Courts that interim orders should generally not be passed without hearing the secured creditor as interim orders defeat the very purpose of expeditious recovery of public money." 13. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.257-259 of 2022, decided on 12.01.2022, where in para 12 it has been held as under:- "12. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution-ARC-Appellant herein Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions Under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore, decisions of this Court in the cases of Praga Tools Corporation (supra) and Ramesh Ahluwalia (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any assistance to the borrowers" 14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners are having alternative efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002; secondly, the guidelines issued by the R.B.I. can be very much looked into by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as by the banks while examining the reply if submitted by the petitioners against the notices served upon them and lastly in the facts and circumstances in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited as well as the Pheonix India (both supra), I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, these writ petitions stand dismissed.