ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “1. The respondent No.1 may be directed to produce the entire documents executed in relation to the loan facility namely loan agreements; sanction letter; Mortgage deed; memorandum of deposition of title deeds; CERSAI Registration Certificate, appointment of authorised officer and entire statement of accounts since inception of the loan account. 2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside all the actions of the Respondent No.1 taken under SARFAESI Act since declaration of the account as NPA and thereafter, issuance of Demand Notice and Possession Notice. 3. The cost and charges for undertaking the present actions under SARFAESI Act which are declared illegal and quashed, be deleted from the account of the Petitioners and also the penalties imposed for the period may be set aside/deleted. 4. Cost may be imposed against the erring officials in favour of the Petitioners.” 2. The petitioner No.1-Prakash Agencies and the petitioner No.2-Jai Jhulelal Stores, both are separate legal entities having an independent registration and are also separate properties. Both the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 availed two loan facilities each on 20.09.2019 and thereafter, some additional facilities on 30.06.2020. The petitioners have been servicing their accounts regularly but had been classified as Non Performing Assets (in short ‘NPA’) erroneously on 04.07.2023 and 29.07.2023 respectively and a Demand Notice dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-4) for both the accounts was issued against them under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thereafter, the respondent No.1-Bank proceeded to issue a Possession Notice dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure-8) under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and thus, being aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel representing the respondents, at the outset, raises a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his rebuttal, submits that:- (a) The impugned Demand Notice was issued to the two separate borrowers, singly, in contravention of express mandate of SARFAESI Act and the classification of loan accounts as NPA has been done in contravention of the guidelines laid down by RBI. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his rebuttal, submits that:- (a) The impugned Demand Notice was issued to the two separate borrowers, singly, in contravention of express mandate of SARFAESI Act and the classification of loan accounts as NPA has been done in contravention of the guidelines laid down by RBI. The defective Possession Notice dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure-8) under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, has not been issued in furtherance of the Demand Notice, upon which, it claims to have been issued. The entire action has been taken by the person who is not authroized to take the action under the SARFAESI Act and the secured assets have not been registered upon Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (in short ‘CERSAI’) and hence, are not liable to be enforced under the SARFAESI Act. (b) As required under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the bank was mandated to serve a demand notice upon all the borrowers and was also required to affix upon the properties of the borrowers/petitioners by publishing it in two leading newspapers having circulation in the locality, but in the present case, the respondent-bank failed to do so. The bank has inflated the liability of the petitioners by way of charging the interest at exorbitant rates and also by debiting various costs and expenses. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the cases of:- (i) Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 . (ii) Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1995. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 7. This Court is of the view that the petitioners instead of availing the appropriate remedy have invoked the writ jurisdiction without availing the effective efficacious and statutory remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The impugned Demand Notice dated 11.08.2023 and the Possession Notice dated 30.10.2023, have been issued to the petitioners against which, effective and statutory remedy is available to them, but the petitioners chose not to avail the same by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is reproduced hereunder:- “17. The impugned Demand Notice dated 11.08.2023 and the Possession Notice dated 30.10.2023, have been issued to the petitioners against which, effective and statutory remedy is available to them, but the petitioners chose not to avail the same by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is reproduced hereunder:- “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, 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. (1A) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. reported in [(2023) SCC Online SC 435] decided on 17.04.2023, 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. 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s South Indian Bank (supra) has clearly deprecated the High Courts entertaining the writ petitions involving the controversy regarding the SARFAESI Act, 2002, especially against the private Banks which does not fall under the definition of ‘State’, as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and in the present case at hand, the respondent Bank is a private bank/financial institution and thus, is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum strictly in accordance with law and thus, on this ground alone, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 10. In the case comprising of similar facts and circumstances, i.e. United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , Hon’ble the Apex Court has observed that:- “xxxxx 42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditions and effective. Xxxxx xxxxx” 11. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditions and effective. Xxxxx xxxxx” 11. 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 SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides the petitioners an effective and efficacious alternate remedy and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any extraordinary 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. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Stay petition as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand rejected. 13. Needless to observe that the petitioners would be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available under the Act of 2002 within a period of ‘15 days’ from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if so required.