By the Court.—Heard Sri S.K.pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent bank.

2. This writ petition has a litigative history namely that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ C No. 16959 of 2014 that was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

3. The petitioner filed a second writ petition being Writ C No. 21981 of 2014 which was disposed of with the clear observation that the petitioners will have to avail of the remedies under the SARFAESI Act 2002. The judgment dated 17.4.2014 is extracted hereinunder :

“We have heard Sri Shashi Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

This writ petition is directed against the auction notice dated 20.2.2014 and notice dated 12.3.2014 issued by the respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act).

Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that in case the Bank gives them the statement of account after adjustment of amount already deposited by the petitioners, they will deposit the defaulted amount in case this Court grants the benefit of installments.

Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that against the proceedings and measures taken under the SARFAESI Act, the Act itself provides the remedy to an aggrieved borrower and the petitioners having not availed such remedy as provided under the Act, cannot maintain this writ petition directly before this Court.

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Initially a notice was published in the newspaper for E-auction of the disputed property under the SARFAESI Act and 24.3.2014 was fixed for the auction. The petitioners appear to have assailed the said notice by means of Writ Petition No. 16959 of 2014-Arun Kumar Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, wherein a statement was made by learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the auction scheduled to be held on 24.3.2014 did not take place. The petitioners on that statement withdrew their writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition for the same cause of action. The Court granted them liberty and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn by order dated 25.3.2014.

The petitioners have now filed this writ petition against the said notices published in the newspaper. It is quite apparent from perusal of both the notices that the petitioners have defaulted in payment of the loan granted to them and the Bank has initially proceeded under the SARFAESI Act. By the impugned notice dated 12.3.2014, the Bank has invited the petitioners to come to the Bank alongwith all receipts of payment, if any, made by them and deposit the balance amount if any. The petitioners appear to have not availed the said benefit and earlier had filed the aforesaid writ petition. Even thereafter they have not responded to the Bank’s notice dated 12.3.2014.

Under such circumstances, we find that the petitioners ought to have taken the remedies available under the SARFAESI Act and having not done so, cannot maintain this writ petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are always at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available to them and any observation made in this order would not prejudice their rights in any manner whatsoever.

The writ petition is finally disposed of.

No order is passed as to costs.”

4. The petitioners thereafter did avail of the remedy and the secutrization application filed by them was disposed of whereafter the petitioners have admittedly filed an appeal in terms of Section 18 SARFASEI Act 2002 being appeal No. 276 of 2015.

5. It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondent bank that the property in between