JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been listed in the category of ‘for orders’. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today, itself. 2. Application filed by learned counsel for the petitioner for taking on record the amended cause title is allowed and the same is taken on record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- “A. Allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner. B. Declare the entire recovery proceeding initiated under Sec 13(2) vide notice dt 18/04/11 and consequently issued possession notices dt 16/05/13 & 31/05/13 and resultant notice for proclamation dt 10.11.13 and auction proceeding dt 13/12/13 illegal, arbitrary and of without jurisdiction. C. Consequently quash and set aside the impugned demand notice dated 18/04/11, possession notices dt 16/05/13 & 31/05/13 and resultant notice for proclamation dt 10.11.13 and auction proceeding dt 13/12/13. D. Restore the possession of auctioned property the industrial plot, machinery and plant of petitioner company. E. Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. Costs may kindly be awarded.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner company took financial assistance from the respondent Bank and executed an agreement by which a term loan of Rs. 370 lacs, cash credit limit of Rs. 130 lacs and overdraft facility of Rs. 85 lacs was taken in order to secure the said credit facilities. The respondent bank created equitable mortgage of the industrial land situated at Plot No.96 and 97 of the industrial area at Gudli, Udaipur. The Central Government had promulgated a subsidy scheme for fertilizers industries to benefit the farmers under which the manufacturer of fertilizers is required to give concession to the agriculturist for sale of fertilizers, upon which, he can seek reimbursement of the said concession/subsidy from the Central Government. The petitioner had also submitted claim for reimbursement of subsidy for the month of August, 2009 and September 2009, however, the petitioner received subsidy belatedly in the month of May, 2010. The subsidy disbursement to the petitioner was withheld by the Department of Fertilizers to the tune of Rs. 377.50 lacs for the period 01/10/2009 to 31/07/2011. The petitioner had also submitted claim for reimbursement of subsidy for the month of August, 2009 and September 2009, however, the petitioner received subsidy belatedly in the month of May, 2010. The subsidy disbursement to the petitioner was withheld by the Department of Fertilizers to the tune of Rs. 377.50 lacs for the period 01/10/2009 to 31/07/2011. The respondent No.4, General Manager and the respondent No.3 the authorised officer issued a notice dated 18.04.2011 (Annexure-2) to the petitioner as well as to its guarantor under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2002’) by directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6,21,14,841/- within a period of 60 days from the receipt of the said notice dated 18.04.2011. The respondent bank and the petitioner company entered into a Tri-Partite Agreement on 17.08.2011 and since then, the petitioner company had been continuing with the manufacturing activities smoothly. 5. The respondent No.3 served upon the petitioner company a notice dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure-8) in Schedule 4 prescribed under Rule 8 (1) of Securitization Rules, 2002 while taking symbolic possession of the petitioner’s assets and possession of residential house. Thereafter, one corrigendum was published in both the papers that the possession taken by the respondents of the industrial establishment to the petitioner company has been withdrawn with immediate effect and thus, the proceedings initiated under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 came to an end. The petitioner company was served upon a notice dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure-11) referring to its earlier notice dated 18.04.2011 under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 intimating the petitioner company that the bank will take the possession of the property on 31.05.2013. Finally on 31.05.2013, a fresh notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 2003 read with Rule 8(1) of Rules of 2002 was served upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued a publication in the daily newspaper i.e. Dainik Bhaskar Udaipur edition in respect to the possession notice. The respondents issued notice under Rule 6(2), 8(6) & 9(1) to the petitioner company on 11.11.2013 (Annexure-13) and annexed a notice of public auction which was scheduled on 13.12.2013. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued a publication in the daily newspaper i.e. Dainik Bhaskar Udaipur edition in respect to the possession notice. The respondents issued notice under Rule 6(2), 8(6) & 9(1) to the petitioner company on 11.11.2013 (Annexure-13) and annexed a notice of public auction which was scheduled on 13.12.2013. The petitioner company being aggrieved of the same approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal praying for staying the auction proceedings which was scheduled on 13.12.2013 and after hearing both the parties on 11.12.2013 (Annexure-14), the learned Tribunal granted conditional interim order in favor of the petitioner however, the petitioner company failed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1.00 crore by 12.11.2013. The respondent bank conditionally auctioned the industrial establishment on 13.12.2013. Inspite of the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Tribunal, the respondent bank auctioned the property of the petitioner company on 13.12.2013 by way of conducting the said auction proceedings. The petitioner company being aggrieved of the recovery proceedings initiated under Section 13 (2) vide notice dated 18.04.2011 and possession notices dated 16.05.2013 and 31.05.2013, auction proceedings dates 13.12.2013 as well as the demand notice dated 18.04.2011 has preferred the present writ petition. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent bank raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, the remedy of statutory appeal is available to the petitioner company. He also submitted that the petitioner has already preferred an application before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal while giving a challenge to the auction proceedings held on 13.12.2013 and in the present writ petition also the petitioner company has challenged the same auction proceedings held on 13.12.2013 as well as the earlier recovery proceedings and notices issued to the petitioner company, thus, on this ground, the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner company submitted that the remedy of appeal is not available to the petitioner company as said appeal can be filed if any person is aggrieved by any order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner company submitted that the remedy of appeal is not available to the petitioner company as said appeal can be filed if any person is aggrieved by any order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. He further submitted that under Section 17, an application against measures to recover secured debt can be filed if any person is aggrieved by any of the measures referred in sub Section 4 of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor and in the instant case, much water has been flown as the respondents have crossed the stage of Section 13 (4) and the stage of matter lies under Section 13 (6) as the auction proceedings have already taken place on 13.12.2013 and further the sale has been confirmed on 30.01.2014. He further submitted that the petitioner has left no remedy but to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent bank and private respondent jointly submitted that the auction proceedings were initiated vide notice dated 13.12.2013 and the petitioner was granted conditional interim order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 11.12.2013 while granting the petitioner an opportunity to deposit an amount of Rs.1.00 crore by 12.11.2013 restraining the respondent bank to conduct auction proceedings however, the petitioner did not deposit the said amount and thus, the respondent bank proceeded with the auction proceedings and the same was confirmed on 30.01.2014. Learned counsels further submitted that the petitioner thereafter on 06.05.2015 filed the present writ petition i.e. after a delay of more than one and half year and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner company that the remedy laid down under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 is not available to the petitioner is ill founded as under sub- Section 13(4), it has been specifically laid down that the secured creditors may rake recourse to one ore more availing measures to secure his secured debt mainly take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assigning or sale or releasing the secured assets and thus, under sub-Section 13(4)(a), if the respondents have conducted the auction proceedings which have been culminating into a sale, the petitioner has remedy available under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 for filing application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal which the petitioner has already availed and thus, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy being available to the petitioner. Learned counsels for the respondents also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. decided on 17.04.2023. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. This Court, observes that the petitioner’s apprehension and submission that on account of subsequent development that the respondent conducted auction of the property of conducting the auction that the auction proceedings which culminated into a confirmed sale on 30.01.2014, the petitioner does not have the remedy available under the Act of 2002 is without merit as Section 17 of the Act of 2002 unambiguously states that any person who is aggrieved by any of the measures referred to sub-Section 4 of Section 13 of the Act of 2002 taken by the secured creditor may make an application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Further, a bare look at Section 13(4) reflects that if the secured creditor takes a recourse of one or more of the measures to recover his secured debt like taking possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assigning or sale for realising the secured asset and in the present case, the respondent bank while invoking Section 13(4)(a) has proceeded to auction the secured asset of the petitioner company which has been culminated into a confirm sale and thus, the petitioner company has an efficacious, effective statutory remedy available under the Act of 2002. The relevant portion of Section 17(1) and Section 13(4)(a)(b) of the Act of 2002 are reproduced as under:- “17. [Application against measures to recover secured debts].—(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in subsection (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter,1 [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 measure had been taken: [Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.] [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section.] 13. Enforcement of security interest. Enforcement of security interest. (4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:— (a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; [(b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset: Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt: Provided further that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt;]” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s South Indian Bank (supra) has specifically held that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wide but are required to be exercised only in extra ordinary circumstances and in para No.13 of the judgment, it has been specifically held that the High Courts should not grant indulgence while invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute and the relevant para is reproduced hereunder:- “13. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, 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 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.” 12. 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.” 12. This Court also observes that the petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned notices before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Tribunal had granted the petitioner a conditional interim order dated 11.12.2013 which is reproduced as under:- “The Applicant has filed the above S.A. for quashing the public auction notice dt. 10.11.2013 and possession notice dt. 31.5.2013 issued U/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and also for quashing the demand notice dt. 18.4.2011 and by way of interim relief prayed for restraining the Non Applicant Bank from proceeding further U/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act till the disposal of the S.A. the auction of the secured asset - Plot No. 96 & 97 Industrial Area, Gudli, Udaipur, admeasuring 4523.25 Sq. Mtr and a Residential House belonging to Applicant No. 2 situated at Plot No. 33 C. New Fatehpura, Udaipur, admeasuring 8316 Sq. Feet is scheduled for 13.12.2013. The Applicant is directed to deposit Rs. 1.00 Crore by D.D./Cash/RTGs/ NEFT with the Non Applicant Bank latest by 12th December, 2013 and also deposit another Rs. 50.00 Lac within two weeks i.e. on or before 26.12.2013 and another 50.00 Lac within next two weeks i.e. on or before 9.1.2014. In the meantime, the Non Applicant Bank shall maintain statusquo in respect of secured asset - Plot No. 96 & 97 Industrial Area, Gudli, Udaipur, admeasuring 4523.25 Sq. Mtr and a Residential House belonging to Applicant No. 2 situated at Plot No. 33 C, New Fatehpura, Udaipur, admeasuring 8316 Sq. Feet. The Applicant may approach the Non Applicant Bank for compromise/ OTS. If the Applicant comits default in complying with the payment of Rs. 2.00 Crore as stated above statusquo order shall stands vacated automatically. File be put up for further proceedings on 20.01.2014” It has been mentioned in the order of DRT that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 1.00 Crore with the respondent bank latest by 12.12.2013, and another amount of Rs. 2.00 Crore as stated above statusquo order shall stands vacated automatically. File be put up for further proceedings on 20.01.2014” It has been mentioned in the order of DRT that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 1.00 Crore with the respondent bank latest by 12.12.2013, and another amount of Rs. 50 lacs within two weeks on or before 09.01.2014 then the respondent bank shall maintain the status quo in respect of the secured asset situated at Plot No. No.96 and 97 of the industrial area at Gudli, Udaipur and a residential house belonging to applicant No.2 situated at Plot No.33 C, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. however, the petitioner company chose not to comply with the interim order dated 11.12.2013 and thereafter, has filed the present writ petition on 06.05.2015 whereas the sale was confirmed on 30.01.2014. Thus, the petitioner instead of availing the appropriate remedy has invoked the writ jurisdiction without availing the effective efficacious and statutory remedy available to him under the Act of 2002. 14. Thus, in view of the above discussion and without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence in the present writ petition on the ground that the Act of 2002 provides the petitioner company an effective and efficacious alternate remedy and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any extra ordinary circumstances due to which the present writ petition could be entertained by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the present writ petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 15. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed. 16. Needless to observe that the petitioner company would be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available under the Act of 2002 within a period of one month from the date of this order, if so required.