ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Bhavini N. Chauhan for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Raj Tanna for the respondent-State.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

“a) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to Admit and allow this petition;

b) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to Quash and set aside impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Hon’ble DRTII Ahmedabad in S.A. No. 325 of 2020;

c) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to directions directing to Hon'ble DRTII Ahmedabad to stay the implementation, execution and operation of order dated 06.06.2022 passed resp. no.3 till final disposal of S.A. No.325/2020;

d) Pending, admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the notice dated 15.12.2022 issued by respondent no.2 till final disposal of this petition and To grant order to maintain the Status Quo of the mortgage property;

e) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further relief/Ss as may be deemed fit and appropriate in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.”

3. Learned advocate Ms.Chauhan for the petitioners submitted that this Court has only the jurisdiction when the Bank has not issued the notice as per the provisions of Section 13(2)of the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act, 2002’) and there is no alternative efficacious remedy under Section 18 of the Act, 2002 against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002.

4. Section 18 of the Act, 2002 reads as under:

“Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.—(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal.”

5. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Phoenix Arc Private Limited Versus Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir reported in (2022) 5 SCC 345 wherein the Apex Court in the following terms has categorically held that when there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India :

“7.2. While considering the issue regarding the maintainability of and/or entertainability of the writ petitions by the High Court in the instant case, a few decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – ARC are required to be referred to.

7.3. In the case of Satyawati Tondon & Ors. (supra), it was observed and held by this Court that the remedies available to an aggrieved person against the action taken under section 13(4) or Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, by way of appeal under Section 17, can be said to be both expeditious and effective. On maintainability of or entertainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a case where the effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person, it is observed and held in the said decision in paragraphs 43 to 46 as under:-

“43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only