ORDER : 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “(1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions and the impugned order dated 09.08.2023, passed by the Assistant General Manager, Bank of India, Main Branch Raipur, may kindly be set-aside and the respondent Bank may kindly be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner as per the sale confirmation letter and the Bank may further be directed to accept the remaining amount and the demand draft dated 07.08.2023 being No.628243 and sale certificate may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. (2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in alternative the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent Bank to return the amount deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.9,14,250/- with interest.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings initiated by the respondent bank for auctioning mortgaged property. Petitioner was declared 'highest bidder' in the auction proceeding and therefore, on the next date of sale confirmation, he deposited 25% of the amount of sale consideration. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that possession of the property put to auction by respondents was not obtained under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002') and proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is pending before the District Magistrate concerned. As such, on the date of auction, respondents were not in actual physical possession of the property. Petitioner approached the bank authorities to know about status of property, whereupon he was directed to approach the authority who is looking after the proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Application filed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 was decided only on 20.07.2023. After issuance of sale confirmation certificate, petitioner approached the bank authorities for depositing balance 75% amount, but the petitioner was informed that said amount cannot be accepted from him as he failed to deposit the same within the prescribed period of 15 days. Petitioner was also informed that 25% amount deposited by him stood forfeited. 3. After issuance of sale confirmation certificate, petitioner approached the bank authorities for depositing balance 75% amount, but the petitioner was informed that said amount cannot be accepted from him as he failed to deposit the same within the prescribed period of 15 days. Petitioner was also informed that 25% amount deposited by him stood forfeited. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submits that writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of availability of efficacious alternate remedy to petitioner. He contended that for the grievances arising out of proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 2002, the borrower or any other person is having efficacious alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Agrawal Tracom Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank & ors, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626 . 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that indisputably, on the date of auction, the proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 was pending before the District Magistrate which prima facie shows that respondents were not in actual possession of property on the date of auction, and therefore, they cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of their own faults or enrich themselves by forfeiting the amount already deposited by petitioner. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Shariq v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 392. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in record of writ petition. 6. Main objection raised by learned counsel for respondents apart from merits of case, is with regard to maintainability of writ petition in view of specific provisions under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, which is extracted below for ready reference:- “17. Application against measures to recover secured debts].--(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 measure had been taken....” 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has considered the issue of maintainability of writ petition without exhausting alternate remedy available under the Act of 2002 and observed thus:- “25. So far as this case is concerned, sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 is relevant. It provides that, if the auction purchaser commits any default in payment of sale consideration within the time specified, the deposit made by auction purchaser shall be “forfeited” to the secured creditor and the auctioned property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall “forfeit” all claims to the property or its part of the sum for which it may be sold subsequently. 26. Reading of the aforementioned Sections and the Rules and, in particular, Section 17(2) and Rule 9(5) would clearly go to show that an action of secured creditor in forfeiting the deposit made by the auction purchaser is a part of the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13 (4). 27. The reason is that Section 17 (2) empowers the Tribunal to examine all the issues arising out of the measures taken under Section 13 (4) including the measures taken by the secured creditor under Rules 8 and 9 for disposal of the secured assets of the borrower. The expression "provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder" occurring in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (7) of Section 17 clearly suggests that it includes the action taken under Section 13 (4) as also includes therein the action taken under Rules 8 and 9 which deal with the completion of sale of the secured assets. In other words, the measures taken under Section 13 (4) would not be completed unless the entire procedure laid down in Rules 8 and 9 for sale of secured assets is fully complied with by the secured creditor. It is for this reason, the Tribunal has been empowered by Section 17 (2),(3) and (4) to examine all the steps taken by the secured creditor with a view to find out as to whether the sale of secured assets was made in conformity with the requirements contained in Section 13 (4) read with the Rules or not? 28. It is for this reason, the Tribunal has been empowered by Section 17 (2),(3) and (4) to examine all the steps taken by the secured creditor with a view to find out as to whether the sale of secured assets was made in conformity with the requirements contained in Section 13 (4) read with the Rules or not? 28. We also notice that Rule 9(5) confers express power on the secured creditor to forfeit the deposit made by the auction purchaser in case the auction purchaser commits any default in paying installment of sale money to the secured creditor. Such action taken by the secured creditor is, in our opinion, a part of the measures specified in Section 13 (4) and, therefore, it is regarded as a measure taken under Section 13 (4) read with Rule 9 (5). In our view, the measures taken under Section 13 (4) commence with any of the action taken in clauses (a) to (d) and end with measures specified in Rule 9. 29. In our view, therefore, the expression “any of the measures referred to in Section 13 (4) taken by secured creditor or his authorized officer” in Section 17 (1) would include all actions taken by the secured creditor under the Rules which relate to the measures specified in Section 13(4). 30. The auction purchaser (appellant herein) is one such person, who is aggrieved by the action of the secured creditor in forfeiting their money. The appellant, therefore, falls within the expression “any person” as specified under Section 17 (1) and hence is entitled to challenge the action of the secured creditor (PNB) before the DRT by filing an application under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act.” 8. Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in case of Mohd. Shariq (supra), which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is also reproduced below for ready reference:- “25. Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in case of Mohd. Shariq (supra), which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is also reproduced below for ready reference:- “25. We are of the considered view that once there is no dispute on the facts came on record, there appears no reason for the appellant to be relegated to avail other remedial mechanisms for recovery of the indisputed amount and the Division Bench has committed a manifest error in the facts and circumstances in not exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution and instead of resolving the dispute, the Division Bench under the impugned judgment has kept the issue alive, permitting the parties to have a second innings in reference to the dispute which stands crystalized / settled.” 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is aggrieved from forfeiture of 25% amount of sale consideration by respondent bank on the ground that petitioner failed to deposit balance 75% amount within prescribed period. In case of Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court after elaborately discussing the issue with respect to maintainability of writ petition by auction purchaser has held that writ petition would not be maintainable in view of provisions of Section 17 (1) & (2) of the Act of 2002. In the case of Mohd. Shariq (supra), there was no elaborate discussion on the issue of maintainability of writ petition and therefore, I am inclined to follow the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 10. Considering the nature of grievance raised in this writ petition, the provisions of Section17 (1) & (2) of the Act of 2002 as also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable in view of availability of efficacious alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability only. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of petitioner. Petitioner will be at liberty to avail remedy available to him under the Act of 2002. 11. Certified copy as per rules.