ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- (i) by an appropriate writ, direction or order, the notices dated 29.08.2018 (Annex-5.), 26.11.2018 (Annex-6), 26.03.2019 (Annex-7), 12.04.2019 (Annex-8) and 13.05.2019 (Annex-9) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) by an appropriate writ, direction or order, the respondent Bank may restrained from auctioning the property of the petitioner and taking any coercive steps against the petitioner. (iii) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the case may kindly be granted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a plot of land ad-measuring 1068.75 sq. feet from Smt. Santosh by way of a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2018 in the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- out of the total consideration of sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.26,63,099/- was taken as a loan by the petitioner from the respondent-company Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited. 3. As per the loan agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-company, a total sum of Rs.27,00,000/- was disbursed to the petitioner for a period of 240 months with 9% as rate of interest with monthly installment of Rs.24,293/-. The petitioner regularly made all the payments of installments with the respondent-company, however, due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not deposit the installment amount for a month and the monthly installment became overdue. The petitioner received notice for depositing the overdue amount in sum of Rs.34,886/-. The first loan installment was due and the first overdue notice dated 09.03.2018 was issued to the petitioner showing the overdue amount as Rs.34,886/-. But shockingly, on 17.05.2018, the petitioner without any prior notice or granting an opportunity of hearing, received a loan recall notice-cum-demand notice which stated that the respondent are terminating the loan agreement as a foreclosure statement dated 17.05.2018 for a sum of Rs.85,22,563/-, which has to be paid by the petitioner within a period of seven days. But shockingly, on 17.05.2018, the petitioner without any prior notice or granting an opportunity of hearing, received a loan recall notice-cum-demand notice which stated that the respondent are terminating the loan agreement as a foreclosure statement dated 17.05.2018 for a sum of Rs.85,22,563/-, which has to be paid by the petitioner within a period of seven days. On 29.08.2018, the respondent-company issued notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2002"), by stating that the petitioner failed to honour the repayment commitments and thereby demanded an amount of Rs.28,14,649/- as on 29.08.2018. On that day, the due installment was only Rs.1,53,081/-. Thereafter, the respondent issued another possession notice dated 26.11.2018, stating therein that the borrower has failed to repay the amount, therefore, the company has taken over the possession of the property in exercise of powers under Section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Rules. 4. The respondent-company again issued another possession notice dated 26.03.2019, stating therein that borrower has failed to repay the amount, therefore, the company has taken possession of the property in exercise of powers under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002. After taking over the possession of the property of the petitioner, the respondent-company issued the first pre-sale notice of thirty days for sale of immovable secured asset under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The date of auction was fixed as 15.05.2019 and reserved price was kept as Rs.22,02,925/- whereas, the actual price of the property is much higher than the reserved price in the sum of Rs.40,00,000/-. The respondent-company issued notice for removal of movable articles lying in the mortgage property within a period of fifteen days from the date of issue of notice. 5. The petitioner has paid sum of Rs.13,000/-, 20,000/-, 24,293/-, 14,000/-, 10,000/-, 7,300/-, 20,000/- and 20,000/- on 25.09.2018, 10.10.2019, 11.03.2019, 19.03.2019, 22.03.2019, respectively, to the total of Rs.1,41,593/- till date. Some of the receipts are lying in the property which has now been taken over by the respondent-company, therefore, the petitioner is not in possession to the other receipts. 6. As per the online statement of the respondent-company, the overdue amount as on 09.04.2019 is Rs.2,13,023.00/- and as on 09.06.2019, overdue amount comes to Rs.2,30,125/-. Some of the receipts are lying in the property which has now been taken over by the respondent-company, therefore, the petitioner is not in possession to the other receipts. 6. As per the online statement of the respondent-company, the overdue amount as on 09.04.2019 is Rs.2,13,023.00/- and as on 09.06.2019, overdue amount comes to Rs.2,30,125/-. The petitioner is ready and willing to continue the loan agreement and is also willing to repay the loan amount as per the loan installment fixed by the respondent-company at the time of disburse of loan, but, the respondent instead of recovering the amount of loan as per loan agreement, is bent upon cancelling the agreement and demanding the entire loan amount alongwith interest and also bent upon auctioning the property to recover the amount of loan. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notices dated 29.08.2018, 26.11.2018, 12.04.2019 and 13.05.2019, thus, preferred this writ petition. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the respondent-company being a private company, does not fall in the definition of State as laid down under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the same is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondent further raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an efficacious and effective alternative statuary remedy available under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 and therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground. 8. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S South Indian Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Anr. etc. decided on 17.04.2023. The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of M/S South Indian Bank Ltd. and Ors., (supra) is reproduced hereinunder:- 13. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, we do not wish to interfere with the impugned orders passed. We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. We are also constrained to take judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before this Court. One such High Court is that of Punjab and Haryana. 16. Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the non-compliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. 17. We shall reiterate the position of law regarding the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act by quoting a few of the earlier decisions of this Court wherein the said practice has been deprecated while requesting the High Courts not to entertain such cases. 18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that conduct of the respondent was not in accordance with law and without adhering to the conditions laid down in the agreement proceeded to issue notice to the petitioner and also are bent upon to cancel the agreement. He also submits that it is not the case of petitioner that he has not deposited even a single penny of the loan amount which was due upon him. He also submits that it is not the case of petitioner that he has not deposited even a single penny of the loan amount which was due upon him. He submits that due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner was unable to repay the installment of the loan amount, however, he is willing to deposit the loan amount but the respondent-company is not ready to accept the payment of the due loan amount and have arbitrarily initiated action against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned notices. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. The petitioner has been issued notice on 29.08.2018 (Annexure-5) under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 and various other notices have been issued under the Provisions of Act of 2002. The petitioner has an alternative remedy available to him under the Act of 2002, which is an effective and efficacious statutory remedy and without exhausting the alternative remedy, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled law that if an efficacious and effective statutory remedy available is not availed and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked, then it is obligatory upon the person concerned to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances under which jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked. 12. This Court is conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are exercised only in extra ordinary circumstances. 13. In the instant case, no such extraordinary circumstance for invoking the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are demonstrated by the petitioner. 14. The petitioner since has a statutory remedy available to him under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, therefore, on the ground of an efficacious and effective statuary alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay application as well as all pending applications are also dismissed.