The High Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Birendra Singh, Sri S. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The instant petition has been filed invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer;
' I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Possession Notice dated 13.3.2020 and Demand Notice dated 4.2.2019 issued by the respondent No.3 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition).
2. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon' ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.'
3. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner by issuing Demand Notice under S.13 (2) dated 4.2.2019 and Possession Notice dated 13.3.2020 under S.13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as ' SARFAESI Act' read with R.8 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The aforesaid proceeding has been initiated in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (2) of S.13 read with R.8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on failure of repaying the loan amount.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a private Limited Partnership Company incorporated on 8.7.2016 under the Companies Act 2013, which is carrying out business of importing and exporting, preparing, mining, cutting, polishing and processing for all types of marble and granite and other building materials. For establishment of the unit, which is situated over Khata No. 114, Khasara No. 141 in Mauja Ghaskata, Tehsil Kheragarh, district 2 Agra the partners of the petitioner applied for the loan and mortgaged the aforesaid property with the respondent No. 3 Bank of Maharashtra. The Bank granted loan of Rs. 45,00,000/- as a term loan and Rs. 15,00,000/- as cash credit limit, total amounting to Rs. 60,00,000/- in the year 2017. An order was passed on 15.10.2018 by the Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, after inspecting the unit on 20.9.2018 that it was being run without obtaining NOC and consent of Air and Water from Pollution Control Board and that the unit comes within the limit of Taj trapezium zone. As closure order was passed on 15.10.2018 the business activities of the unit have been closed as a result of which the deposit of regular instalment of the loan could not be made. However from 15.2.2019 till 30 September 2019 the instalment of the loan amount was paid. The respondent No. 3 has issued the impugned demand notice dated 4.2.2019 under S.13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. The possession notice was never served upon the petitioner nor any partners or representatives of the petitioner. The notice was only pasted at the main gate of the unit on the basis whereof the partner of the petitioner came to know about the proceeding initiated under the aforesaid Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that even no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner after the issuance of the impugned demand notice dated 4.2.2019 issued under S.13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act only showing the reason that due to failure to adhere to the terms and conditions and had made default hence the account has been classified by the Bank as NPA on 31.1.2019. However, after