ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. The case of petitioners is that, the 2nd petitioner is the sole proprietrix of the 1 st Petitioner and she claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of residential property bearing Flat No.904, admeasuring about 2489 square feet together with an undivided share of land admeasuring about 38.79 square yards out of a total extent of Acs.13.56 in Survey No.201 of Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is asserted, said property was purchased for valid sale consideration out of the personal funds of the 2 nd Petitioner, including her stridhana, gifts received from her family members and financial assistance extended by her husband from time to time, and that the said property was never intended to be used as security for any business or commercial borrowing. 1.1. It is the specific case of Petitioners that the 2 nd Petitioner is a homemaker with limited formal education, having studied only up to 10th standard, and has never engaged in any business activity in her lifetime; she had no experience, expertise or intention to run any business concern and that the proprietary concern in her name was floated without her informed consent or understanding of its implications. It is stated, Respondent No.4, who is the son-in-law of the 2 nd Petitioner, exploited the familial relationship and trust reposed in him to misuse the name and identity of the 2 nd Petitioner for his own financial gain and he floated nearly 18 firms and companies from 2012 onwards for the sole purpose of obtaining loans from various banks and financial institutions and siphoning off the funds to M/s. Challa Cables Pvt. Ltd., a company in which he was actively involved. According to Petitioners, the 1st Petitioner concern is one such entity fraudulently created in the name of the 2 nd Petitioner, without her understanding or participation, and was used as a conduit to avail substantial credit facilities. 1.2. It is further alleged that Respondent No.4 forged signatures of the 2 nd Petitioner on vital loan documents and fabricated other supporting documents clandestinely in collusion with the officials of respondent bank and got sanction and disbursement of loans by overlooking mandatory procedures and in blatant violation of banking norms. 1.2. It is further alleged that Respondent No.4 forged signatures of the 2 nd Petitioner on vital loan documents and fabricated other supporting documents clandestinely in collusion with the officials of respondent bank and got sanction and disbursement of loans by overlooking mandatory procedures and in blatant violation of banking norms. Petitioners allege that Rs.1,90,06,925/- was diverted to fictitious firms such as MR Distributors and Sri Ram Enterprises, and also to Respondent No.4 himself and one Mr. Dheeraj, stated to be his assistant. 1.3. Petitioners further contend that Flat No. 904 in an extent of about 2489 square feet together with an undivided share of about 38.79 square feet out of Acs.13.56 in Survey No. 201, Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was mortgaged without the consent of the 2 nd Petitioner who came to know of the same only when bank officials, along with Respondent No.4, visited the premises on 21.01.2020 for the purpose of valuation. Petitioners state that they were shocked to learn that the property had been offered as collateral security and that inflated valuations were obtained by allegedly using morphed photographs of interiors that were not in existence, solely to enable sanction of higher loan amounts. 1.4. When fraudulent acts came to light, the husband of the 2 nd Petitioner approached the bank authorities seeking release of the mortgaged property and clarification regarding loan transactions, however, possession notices were issued and possession taken notice was published in newspapers on 23.01.2020. Petitioners assert that during this period, Respondent No.4 absconded and could not be traced, leaving the family to face severe financial and emotional distress. Petitioners also refer to proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is stated that Criminal M.P. No.203 of 2020 was filed under Section 14 of the Act for taking possession of the subject property. Hence, they were constrained to file Writ Petition No. 8920 of 2020 wherein interim protection was granted subject to condition of depositing 20% of the outstanding amount with a direction to the bank to consider One Time Settlement proposal. Hence, they were constrained to file Writ Petition No. 8920 of 2020 wherein interim protection was granted subject to condition of depositing 20% of the outstanding amount with a direction to the bank to consider One Time Settlement proposal. The said condition could not be complied with due to the precarious financial condition of the family, ill-health of the 2 nd Petitioner, and the alleged non-release of gold ornaments belonging to family members, which were pledged in other loan accounts connected with Respondent No.4. Despite extensions granted by this Court, the bank rejected OTS proposal on grounds which the Petitioners describe as arbitrary and unjustified. 1.5. The 2 nd Petitioner is stated to have made representation dated 15.11.2021 to the higher authorities of the respondent bank, seeking a thorough investigation into the alleged fraud, collusion and misconduct of bank officials, and requesting that the proposed auction of the subject property scheduled on 10.12.2021 be deferred. The said representation was neither considered nor decided, and no communication was received from the bank in that regard. Hence, this Writ Petition. 2. This Court, by order dated 10.12.2021 directed that status quo obtaining as on that day should be maintained in respect of subject flat. 3. Respondent bank filed a comprehensive counter affidavit denying the allegations of fraud, forgery, fabrication of documents, collusion with Respondent No.4, collusion with any valuer, or any illegal or irregular conduct on the part of its officials. It is asserted that Writ Petition is misconceived, untenable and liable to be dismissed in limine, as no constitutional, statutory or legal right of Petitioners has been violated by the respondent bank in the course of sanctioning loans or enforcing security interest. 3.1. It is pleaded, Writ Petition is not maintainable as an efficacious and statutory remedy is available to petitioners under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and they cannot bypass the said mechanism and invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The bank raises a preliminary objection as to territorial jurisdiction, contending that Respondent No.2 has its corporate office at Bengaluru in the State of Karnataka and Respondent No.3 is situated at Kurnool in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The bank raises a preliminary objection as to territorial jurisdiction, contending that Respondent No.2 has its corporate office at Bengaluru in the State of Karnataka and Respondent No.3 is situated at Kurnool in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is pleaded that the relief sought in the writ petition is not merely in relation to the mortgaged property, but is primarily directed against the alleged inaction of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in initiating action against bank officials and Respondent No.4. Therefore, according to the respondent bank, no part of cause of action insofar as Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Further, if Writ Petition is construed as one relating to enforcement of security interest under the SARFAESI Act in respect of subject Flat, then, such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Division Bench dealing with SARFAESI cases, and not before a learned Single Judge. 3.2. Respondent bank points out that Petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 8920 of 2020 seeking substantially similar reliefs in respect of the very same loan account and the same secured asset, when the bank initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing Criminal M.P. No.203 of 2020 for taking physical possession of the mortgaged property. In the said Writ Petition, this Court granted interim protection by order dated 25.06.2020, which was subsequently modified by order dated 09.07.2020, directing Petitioners to deposit 20% of the outstanding dues within a stipulated period and directing the bank to consider their OTS proposal. Despite, Petitioners did not comply with the said order. Thereafter, Petitioners filed I.A. No.3 of 2020 seeking extension of time for compliance wherein this Court by order dated 31.12.2020 granted further extension of three months, making it expressly clear that in the event of default, respondent bank would be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Even after such extension, Petitioners did not deposit any amount whatsoever, thereby wilfully violating the orders of this Court. 3.3. Even after such extension, Petitioners did not deposit any amount whatsoever, thereby wilfully violating the orders of this Court. 3.3. Respondent bank contends that conduct of Petitioners in enjoying interim protection without compliance, and thereafter filing this Writ Petition seeking similar reliefs, amounts to abuse of the process of Court; they remained silent for nearly eleven months after rejection of their OTS proposal and suddenly approached this Court only when auction notice was issued fixing the date of auction as 10.12.2021, which demonstrates mala fide intention of Petitioners to stall lawful recovery proceedings without any bona fide intention to discharge their admitted liability. 3.4. The respondent bank categorically pleaded that no physical representation dated 15.11.2021 was ever received by them and it was received only as an attachment to e mail dated 04.12.2021, barely six days prior to the scheduled auction. It is alleged, the said representation was deliberately antedated and relied upon to create an artificial cause of action and to seek interim relief from this Court to interdict the auction. Petitioners' earlier OTS proposal offering Rs.1,00,00,000/- was considered by the competent authority and rejected as unreasonable, and thereafter, no fresh or improved OTS proposal was submitted by them. It is pleaded, the 2 nd Petitioner, being the proprietrix of the 1 st Petitioner concern, duly executed all loan and security documents, including Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing Document No.1509 of 2015 dated 26.02.2015 and Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing Document No.3610 of 2018 dated 15.05.2018, thereby creating a valid and enforceable mortgage over the subject property. 3.5. It is asserted that loan transactions were conducted strictly in accordance with banking norms and statutory requirements; a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 10.07.2019, calling upon Petitioners to discharge their liability, and that no objection or representation was submitted by Petitioners under Section 13(3A) of the Act; thereafter, possession notice dated 09.10.2019 was issued in accordance with law; physical possession of the secured asset was taken on 18.10.2021 through an Advocate Commissioner appointed pursuant to orders passed under Section 14 of the Act in Criminal M.P. No.203 of 2020. The bank specifically denies Petitioners' assertion that they continue to remain in physical possession of the property and contends that such averment is false and misleading. 3.6. The bank specifically denies Petitioners' assertion that they continue to remain in physical possession of the property and contends that such averment is false and misleading. 3.6. The respondent bank further pleads that independent recovery proceedings were initiated by filing O.A. No.507 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Insolvency Act, 1993, for recovery of Rs.3,15,31,118.47 due as on 31.10.2020, against Petitioners and the guarantor, Smt. Ch. Radhika Reddy. It is stated that summons were served and the proceedings are pending, rendering the dispute sub judice before the competent tribunal. With regard to the allegations concerning pledging of gold ornaments and payment of Rs.27,65,851/-, respondent bank pleads that gold loans were availed by Respondent No.4 and his family members in their individual capacities and not by the 2nd Petitioner. The bank exercised its general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, in view of subsisting liabilities in other loan accounts, and therefore non-release of gold ornaments was strictly in accordance with law. 3.7. It is also pointed out that pleas of lack of knowledge of loan transactions and mortgage are invented only to evade contractual and statutory liability. Petitioners actively participated in the loan process and benefited from the credit facilities availed. The secured asset was lawfully brought to sale in a public auction conducted on 10.12.2021 in accordance with the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in which Sri Yeruva Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Y. Bali Reddy, R/o. No.93, Nandagiri Hills, Hyderabad, emerged as the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.1,89,50,000/-, which was higher than the reserve price of Rs.1,57,75,000/-. Any interference by this Court, at this stage, would seriously prejudice the rights of a bona fide third-party auction purchaser and adversely affect recovery of public funds. Hence, they pray that Writ Petition be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri Y. Srinivas Muthy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Deputy Solicitor General for Respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank. 5. At the outset, it is to be seen, the dispute squarely arises out of loan transactions between the 1 st Petitioner and respondent bank; creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the subject property and the subsequent measures initiated by the secured creditor for enforcement of such security interest under the provisions of the 2002 Act. 5. At the outset, it is to be seen, the dispute squarely arises out of loan transactions between the 1 st Petitioner and respondent bank; creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the subject property and the subsequent measures initiated by the secured creditor for enforcement of such security interest under the provisions of the 2002 Act. The relief sought, though couched as a challenge to alleged inaction and fraud, is, in substance, directed against the steps taken by the bank under the SARFAESI Act. 6. The material placed on record unmistakably discloses that respondent bank classified the loan account as a non-performing asset and initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act as early as in 2019 by issuing a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, followed by issuance of possession notice under Section 13(4); physical possession of the secured asset was taken on 18.10.2021 through due process of law, and thereafter, it was brought to sale in a public auction conducted on 10.12.2021. 7. It is an admitted position that at no point of time, did Petitioners avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 17 to challenge any of the measures taken by the secured creditor, including the demand notice, possession notice or taking over of physical possession. Availability of such an efficacious and exclusive statutory remedy, coupled with the failure of Petitioners to invoke the same, constitutes a significant bar to the maintainability of this Writ Petition. It is also to be taken note of that Petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition No. 8920 of 2020 in respect of the very same loan account and the same secured asset and secured interim protection subject to depositing 20% of the outstanding dues. Despite having obtained extension of time, they failed to comply with the said condition. Having failed to do so, they cannot be permitted to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution once again to seek substantially similar reliefs. 8. The allegations of fraud, forgery, collusion between the bank officials, Respondent No.4 and the valuer, and diversion of loan proceeds, are vehemently disputed by the respondent bank. Such allegations, by their very nature, involve seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require a detailed examination of documentary evidence, recording of oral evidence and adjudication on credibility. 8. The allegations of fraud, forgery, collusion between the bank officials, Respondent No.4 and the valuer, and diversion of loan proceeds, are vehemently disputed by the respondent bank. Such allegations, by their very nature, involve seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require a detailed examination of documentary evidence, recording of oral evidence and adjudication on credibility. It is well-settled that this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, does not embark upon a fact-finding enquiry of such nature, particularly in matters arising out of commercial transactions and recovery proceedings. 9. This Court further finds that independent recovery proceedings have already been initiated by the bank in O.A. No.507 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, under Section 19 of the 1993 Act for recovery of the amounts due in the very same loan account. The issues relating to the validity of the loan transactions, liability of the borrowers and guarantors, and the enforceability of the security are all matters which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Parallel adjudication of such issues in writ proceedings would be wholly impermissible and contrary to the statutory scheme. 10. This Court also finds considerable force in the contention of the bank that this Writ Petition has been instituted at the eleventh hour, after prolonged inaction on the part of Petitioners and after failure to comply with the earlier orders of this Court, with the apparent object of stalling the auction proceedings and frustrating recovery of public money. The timing and conduct of Petitioners disentitle them to any equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226. 11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the rival claims of the parties including the allegations of fraud, forgery, collusion, or the defences raised by the bank, and all such issues are left open to be urged and adjudicated before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. No costs. 13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.