JUDGMENT :

Bhargav D. Karia, J.:--

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chitrajeet Upadhyay for learned advocate Mr. Kirtan H. Mistry for the petitioner through video conference.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(b) Your Lordship be pleased to quash and set aside impugned order issued by the respondent No. 2 Authority or seizing the possession of the residential property under section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 owned by the petitioner herein dated 10/01/2022 at Annexure-A;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and other ancillary proceedings qua the impugned order at Annexure-A;

(d) to pass any other such order in the interest of justice."

3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short 'the SARFESAI Act'].

4. The petitioner availed the financial assistance from respondent No. 1-Bank for Rs. 50 lakhs being over draft property in the year 2016. The petitioner could not re-pay over draft and therefore, the account of the petitioner was notified as Non-performing Asset Account (for short 'NPA'). The respondent No. 1-Bank under section 13(2) of the SARFESAI Act issued notice on 27.12.2017.

5. Respondent No. 1-Bank thereafter made an application under section 14 of the SARFESAI Act, to take the physical possession of the secured assets which was given as security for availing financial assistance by the petitioner.

6. The order dated 30.12.2022 under section 14 of the SARFESAI Act was passed by the District Magistrate in Securitisation Application No. 53 of 2019/2020.

7. It appears that thereafter, respondent No. 2-Mamaltdar and Executive Magistrate has issued a notice dated 10.01.2022 informing the petitioner that the physical possession of the mortgaged property situated at Duplex Bungalow No. 15, Rajeshwar Bungalow, Revenue Survey No. 241, TP Scheme No. 2, Final Plot No. 70/1 at Village-Harni, District-Vadodara shall be taken on 11.02.2022.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs within 72 hours with respondent No. 2-Bank and therefore, the impugned notice dated 10.01.2022 should be stayed by this Court.

9. Section 17 of the SARFESAI Act provides for alternative efficacious remedy against any action taken under section 13(4) of the SARFESAI Act. Section 14 provides for a measure to assist secured creditors in taking possession of the secured assets and accordingly, it is in furtherance of action taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the SARFESAI Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent No. 1-secured creditor, the petitioner has to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by preferring an application under section 17 of the SARFESAI Act.

10. In such circumstances, this petition cannot be entertained. The Supreme Court in case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. in the judgment and order dated 12.01.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 275-259/2022 has held as under:

"7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the respondents - borrowers whose accounts have been declared as NPA in the year 2013 have filed the writ petitions before the High Court challenging the communication dated 13.08.2015 purporting it to be a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It is required to be noted that as per the appellant - assignor approximately Rs. 117 crores is due and payable to the Bank. While passing the ex-parte interim order on 26.08.2015 and while entertaining the writ petitions against the communication dated 13.08.2015, the High Court has directed to main