HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1673/2013 Bansi Singh S/o Shri Hazari Singh, aged about 58 years, R/o Village Madela, Post Bayala, Via Beawer, Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus 1.State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, through its Managing Director, Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Authorized Officer, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Branch Beawer,Ajmer 3. Collector, Ajmer District ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Dhriti Sharma for Mr. Kunal Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Garg Ms. Sonal Singh JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’). 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 but without availing the same, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 3. It is the settled proposition of law that whenever any alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal is available with a person, he cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the said authority. (2 of 2) [CW-1673/2013] 4. The present writ petition stand dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the appropriate authority. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 6. At this stage, it has been apprised at Bar by the counsel for the parties that in pursuance of the order dated 08.02.2013, passed by this Court, the possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the respondents submits that outstanding amount of the respondent-Bank is still due and the same has not been paid. 8. On the contrary, counsel for the petitioner submits that due outstanding amount has already been paid and No Objection Certificate (NOC) has also been issued by the respondent-Bank. 9. This Court is not entering into the aforesaid controversy as the same would be decided by the DRT. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/204