JUDGMENT : These writ petitions have common facts and common questions of law. Hence, these writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19232/2023 is beneficiary of the 4th respondent-Gurudeva Trust. The petitioner states that he is filing this writ petition with an intention to protect the Trust properties as the Trust is imparting education which is a public duty. 3. The 4th respondent-Trust is running Sree Narayana Guru Institute of Science and Technology at Manjaly, North Paravur. The Trust is also running another Arts and Science College at Manakkappady. According to the petitioner, as per Clause 4(e) of Ext.P1 Trust Deed, the Trust is empowered to sell, pledge, mortgage or otherwise encumber the assets of the Trust with the approval of the General Body. Clause 22(8) provides that the General Body of the Trust has a right to give sanction to sell any properties belonging to the Trust or to create charge on properties. Therefore, sanction of the General Body is required for mortgaging Gurudeva Trust properties. 4. Respondents 7 to 9, who are the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of the Trust since 2014, availed a loan of Rs.20 Crores from the 5th respondent-Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, purportedly for the development of educational institutions under the Trust. The petitioner states that a large number of students are studying in the institution and there are about 200 employees working. There was no requirement for availing a loan of Rs.20 Crores at that time. The loan amount was misutilised by respondents 7 to 9 for their personal purpose. The agenda for availing loan was not placed before the General Body meeting of the Trust. 5. On 09.01.2021, the Kotak Mahindra Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 demanding to clear a liability of Rs.9,85,50,144.90 as on 24.11.2020. The Chairman of the Trust filed W.P.(C) No.6535/2021 before this Court and this Court directed the Trust to remit Rs.11,20,00,000/-in instalments. The direction of this Court was not complied with. 6. There are civil suits pending in the courts at North Paravur against the maladministration of the Trust properties by the office bearers of the Trust. The Chairman of the Trust filed W.P.(C) No.6535/2021 before this Court and this Court directed the Trust to remit Rs.11,20,00,000/-in instalments. The direction of this Court was not complied with. 6. There are civil suits pending in the courts at North Paravur against the maladministration of the Trust properties by the office bearers of the Trust. Respondents 5 and 6 invoked Section 14 of the Securitisation Act and have filed MC No.520/2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam and the Court has passed order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the assets of the Trust. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the CJM Court has issued Ext.P3 notice to the Trust informing that properties will be taken possession of immediately. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notice. 7. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the properties of a Trust cannot be encumbered. The General Body of the Trust has not given permission to mortgage its properties. No prior permission was obtained from the District Court for alienating the properties. The liability created by respondents 7 to 9 is violating statutory provisions. If the 6th respondent is resorting to distress sale of the Trust properties, that will put the Trust and its beneficiaries to irreversible loss. 8. W.P.(C) No.771/2023 has been filed by students studying in educational institutions under the Gurudeva Trust. The petitioners/students argue that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while passing an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act had a statutory obligation to seek the views/permissions of the AICTE/KUHS. The petitioners further urge that the AICTE and the University have obligation to see that the students are shifted to some other affiliated Colleges so that their studies are not affected when the Bank takes over the assets of the Trust where educational institutions are functioning. According to the petitioners, the action of the Bank in taking possession of the properties of the College is violative of the provisions of the Regulations of AICTE and KUHS. The petitioners therefore pray to set aside the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner and to direct the Bank not to take over possession of the 3rd respondent's College and its properties. 9. W.P.(C) No.28766/2023 is filed by a member of the Gurudeva Trust. The petitioner also seeks for a declaration that the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is illegal and arbitrary. 9. W.P.(C) No.28766/2023 is filed by a member of the Gurudeva Trust. The petitioner also seeks for a declaration that the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, in view of Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, no criminal or civil proceedings can be initiated against a Trust. The recovery proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 is therefore highly illegal and arbitrary. The Trust is not a juristic person and is not competent to enter into a contract. Therefore, the Trust could not have created a mortgage in favour of the Bank. If proceedings are initiated against the Trust, all the Trustees shall be made parties. Only the General Body of the Trust has the right to sell or mortgage Trust properties. The petitioner therefore seeks to declare that the proceedings initiated by the Bank against the assets of the Trust is illegal. 10. The 4th respondent-Gurudeva Trust filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.19232/2023. The 4th respondent stated that after a new Executive Committee assumed charge in the year 2023, enquiries were made into the causes for the financial crisis of the Trust. The enquiry revealed serious anomalies in the loan application, loan processing and loan disbursement by the Bank. Respondents 7 to 9, who were the then office bearers of the Trust misused the Trust and got themselves enriched. No building was constructed after availing the loan. The mortgage of 10.33 Acres of land where the Technical Campus of the institute of the Trust is functioning, was without obtaining mandatory approval from the MG University/KUHS, the AICTE or the General Body of the Trust. 11. The loan availed by the Trust was declared as NPA in the year 2019. the guarantors to the loan have assets worth crores of rupees. The Bank can very well proceed against the guarantors. The Bank must be restrained from proceeding against the Trust properties. 12. Respondents 5 and 6 resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.19232/2023. Respondents 5 and 6 submitted that Ext.P3 has been issued invoking the provisions of the Securitisation Act. The Bank can very well proceed against the guarantors. The Bank must be restrained from proceeding against the Trust properties. 12. Respondents 5 and 6 resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.19232/2023. Respondents 5 and 6 submitted that Ext.P3 has been issued invoking the provisions of the Securitisation Act. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [ (2010) 8 SCC 110 ], writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings taken against Gurudeva Trust under the Securitisation Act. The borrower Gurudeva Trust has challenged the proceedings filing SA No.469/2022 in the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. The borrower has also filed three writ petitions in this Court. 13. The Trust was extended with credit facilities to the tune of Rs.21,89,80,000/-. When there was default in repayments, the Bank directed the Trust to pay the overdue amount of Rs.1,39,92,254.80. The loan accounts of the Trust became NPA on 07.11.2019. Section 13(2) proceedings were initiated against the Trust on 09.01.2021. It was thereafter that Section 14 was resorted to. The petitioners have not advanced any legal grounds warranting interference in the securitisation proceedings initiated by the Bank, under Article 226. 14. I have heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in the three writ petitions, the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank, the respective Standing Counsel representing AICTE and APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, learned counsel for the Gurudeva Trust and other contesting respondents who have appeared in the writ petitions. 15. As far as W.P.(C) No.19232/2023 and W.P.(C) No.28766/2023 are concerned, these writ petitions are filed by the beneficiaries/members of Gurudeva Trust, which is not a State or instrumentality of the State. The dispute is relating administration/maladministration of the Trust including availing of Bank loans mortgaging the Trust properties. Disputes between members of a private Trust or between beneficiaries of a Trust and the Trust cannot be resolved through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners therefore will have to approach the appropriate court/forum for redressal of their grievances relating to administration of the Trust. 16. Disputes between members of a private Trust or between beneficiaries of a Trust and the Trust cannot be resolved through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners therefore will have to approach the appropriate court/forum for redressal of their grievances relating to administration of the Trust. 16. The allegation of the petitioners is that as per Clause 4(e) of the Trust Deed, the Trust is empowered to sell, pledge, mortgage or otherwise encumber the assets of the Trust with the approval of the General Body. The petitioners would argue that as per Clause 22(8) of the Trust Deed, it is only the General Body of the Trust which has a right to give sanction to sell any properties belonging to the Trust or to create charge on properties. The petitioners would urge that the General Body of the Trust has not given sanction to sell any property or mortgage Trust properties to the Bank. By the very nature of the allegations, the issue raised is a civil dispute involving questions of fact, which this Court cannot go into in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The allegation of the petitioners that respondents 7 to 9 in W.P.(C) No.19232/2023 have misutilised the loan amount availed from the Bank is also a disputed question of fact. 17. In all these proceedings, the challenge is on the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in MC No.520/2022 and the notice dated 02.01.2023 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the CJM Court. The said order of the CJM Court and the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner are pursuant to the provisions under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2002. 18. The grievance of the petitioners is relating to the proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act and the attempt of the respondents to take over and sell the secured asset provided by the petitioners. 19. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 19. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [ (2010) 8 SCC 110 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be entertained against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy. 20. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [ 2018 (1) KLT 784 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act. 21. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [ 2020 (2) KLT 756 ] declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation Act. 22. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip [ 2023 (4) KLT 29 ], the Apex Court held that when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. 23. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations. In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ petitions are not maintainable. 24. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.771/2023, who claim to be students undergoing studies in the educational institutions of the Gurudeva Trust, have a case that the Trust has mortgaged the property to the Bank without obtaining approval from the AICTE. If the Bank takes over possession of the educational institutions, it would force the Trust to close the educational institutions. According to the petitioners, the AICTE Act does not say anything about the closure of the institution. If the Bank takes over possession of the educational institutions, it would force the Trust to close the educational institutions. According to the petitioners, the AICTE Act does not say anything about the closure of the institution. However, the Approval Process Handbook issued by the AICTE which has statutory support provides for closure of an educational institution in a progressive manner which will be complied only when the students admitted complete the course. The petitioners would further submit that the Trust has not obtained prior permission from the MG University/KUHS for alienating properties. 25. The Bank is taking over possession of the secured assets in exercise of the powers under the Securitisation Act, 2002. No statutory provision is brought to my notice by the respondents to show that mortgaging of Trust properties where educational institutions are functioning, require prior approval of the AICTE or of any University. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the Securitisation Act on the grounds urged by the petitioners. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in this judgment shall not affect any pending civil proceedings and would not bar any of the parties from approaching any competent court/forum for redressal of their grievance in this regard.