ORDER : P.Naveen Rao, J. Heard Sri P. Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. 1st petitioner - M/s.Navneeta Steels Private Limited obtained cash credit from the 2nd respondent-bank. Holding that petitioners defaulted in repayment of the loan, the 2nd respondent classified the loan account of the petitioners as Non-Performing Asset and has taken recourse to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) to recover the loan amount. In the process, 2nd respondent filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the 3rd respondent-Collector & District Magistrate, Hyderabad District to take physical possession of the secured assets. On 03.09.2022 the District Magistrate passed orders directing the Tahasildar, Shaikpet Mandal to assist the Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer of the respondent bank in taking over physical possession of the property and for conducting Panchanama. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that classification of the loan account of the petitioners’ as NPA is clearly erroneous and contrary to the guidelines and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent bank submits that the directions of this Court were complied. He further submitted that if the petitioners have grievance against the 2nd respondent in taking recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, they have to avail the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. But without availing the said remedy, this writ petition is filed. 5. When the remedy provided by Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is an effective and efficacious remedy, this Court do not entertain the writ petition and relegates the petitioner to avail the said remedy. 6. On classification of loan account as NPA and taking recourse to SARFAESI Act was considered by this Court in W.P.No.35063 of 2022 to which both of us are members of the Division Bench. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 12.10.2022 read as under: “12. From the discussion on relevant statutory provisions and opinion expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals and Transcore, it is clear as crystal that once a loan account becomes substandard, doubtful or loss asset, in the book of a bank/financial institution it is classified as NPA. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 12.10.2022 read as under: “12. From the discussion on relevant statutory provisions and opinion expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals and Transcore, it is clear as crystal that once a loan account becomes substandard, doubtful or loss asset, in the book of a bank/financial institution it is classified as NPA. The RBI Guidelines clearly specify when a loan account reaches that stage to be classified as NPA. The steps taken leading to classifying a loan account as NPA is an internal matter within the bank/financial institution. The Bank/financial institution notifies the same in Section 13 (2) of the Act, 2002 notice and calls upon the borrower to clear the loan within sixty days. At that stage, it is open to borrower to respond and place before the bank/ financial institution his point of view. He can also oppose declaring his account as NPA. He can rely on RBI Guidelines on various aspects. The Bank/Financial institution is required to consider the objections objectively and to take a decision. It is also required to communicate the decision to the borrower. 13. As analyzed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals and Transcore there is a statutorily prescribed restraint in taking legal course by a borrower before Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 stage. Statute prescribed this course having regard to accumulation of debts to banks stifling the banking/financial sector. It is in public interest to fast track the recovery of dues by banks/financial institutions. Thus, in Mardia Chemicals Hon’ble Supreme Court held that scheme of SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not envisage any remedy till Section 13(4) stage is reached. It has gone to the extent of saying that borrower has no right of hearing at the stage of Section 13(2) and he can only file objections under Section 13(3-A) of the Act, 2002. Therefore, upto Section 13(4) no remedy is provided to a borrower/guarantor. It is the statutory scheme that must be respected by all, more so when the scheme stood the test of judicial scrutiny. 14. After Section 13(4) notice, it is open to borrower to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. The Debts Recovery Tribunal is competent to go into all aspects leading to bank/ financial institution taking recourse under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002. 14. After Section 13(4) notice, it is open to borrower to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. The Debts Recovery Tribunal is competent to go into all aspects leading to bank/ financial institution taking recourse under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002. Perforce, when the Debts Recovery Tribunal examines the claim of borrower/guarantor/person aggrieved opposing measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 such as taking symbolic possession, notice of sale of secured asset, taking physical possession etc, the borrower/guarantor/person aggrieved can plead before the Debts Recovery Tribunal his defence against such action including alleged violation of RBI Guidelines leading to illegally classifying his account as NPA. 15. Further, classifying loan account as NPA can be challenged before RBI alleging that its guidelines are violated. A complaint can be filed before the Ombudsman. Therefore, taking recourse to writ remedy before reaching Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 stage defeats the statutory scheme and scuttles the very object in creating special dispensation to recover the debts by banks/financial institutions. The object and purpose of these two Acts have to be kept in mind while considering a writ petition filed against classifying an account as NPA. It is not for no reason the legal remedy is differed till Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 stage is reached. Till this stage, as consistently held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, no cause of action arises to the borrower/ guarantor to seek legal remedy. He has to wait till further steps are taken under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002. 16. Time and again, the Constitutional Courts are repelling the resort to writ remedy against classifying a loan account as NPA and various measures taken by Banks/Financial Institutions under SARFAESI Act and relegating parties to avail remedy under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. 18. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and knows no bounds. Wherever injustice is caused to a person writ Court extends its long arm of justice and reaches out to a person in need. Though, Article 226 is very wide, the constitutional Courts have imposed self-imposed restraint on exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. Statutes and Administrative orders dealing with a particular aspect do provide mechanism to redress grievances arising out of a statute or administrative order. Though, Article 226 is very wide, the constitutional Courts have imposed self-imposed restraint on exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. Statutes and Administrative orders dealing with a particular aspect do provide mechanism to redress grievances arising out of a statute or administrative order. Sometimes, more than one remedy is provided, like Original Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. They also create statutory Tribunals with layers of redressal mechanism. Such forums are effective and efficacious to dress the grievance of a person. Whenever the Court notices that the grievance ventilated before the Court can be addressed by a duly constituted administrative authority/quasi-judicial body, it relegates the person to avail the said remedy before knocking its doors. In the following decisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court succinctly stated the need to avail statutorily engrafted remedy before availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18.2. In Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “18. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution — ARC — the 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. 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 Praga Tools Corpn. [Praga Tools Corpn. Therefore, decisions of this Court in Praga Tools Corpn. [Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.A. Imanual, (1969) 1 SCC 585 ] and Ramesh Ahluwalia [Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 456 : 4 SCEC 715] relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any assistance to the borrowers.………… 21. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13-8-2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1 crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs 117 crores. The ad interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of court. It appears that the High Court has initially granted an ex parte ad interim order mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an interim order, the rights of the secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured creditor/assignor. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) 19. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 , the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a duly constituted Tribunal vesting jurisdiction on matters arising out of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and is the Court of first instance. When a person has a statutorily engrafted remedy available to redress his grievance, the writ Court does not entertain the writ petition and relegates him to avail the said remedy. This case is no exception and must fall in line. 7. Following the decision in W.P. No. 35063 of 2022, dated 12.10.2022, and since petitioner has an efficacious statutorily engrafted remedy is available this writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.