1 WP 926 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.926 OF 2006 Vishnukant Upadhyay and Anr. .....Petitioners V/s. Union of India and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Mahesh Joshi i/by M/s.O.P.Soni & Co., for the petitioners. Mr.D.A.Dubey i/by S.S.Sarkar, for respondent No.1. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 27th OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioners also challenged the order dated 28-10-2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Thane, in Misc. Application No.88 of 2005. 2. The petitioners had taken loan from respondent No.3, which is a finance company. Since he had committed defaults in repayment, the respondent No.3 issued notice under Section 14(1) of the Act, which followed by the order of the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Magistrate by way of this petition, wherein he has also challenged the constitutional validity of 2 WP 926 of 2006 Section 14 of the Act. 3. It is required to be noted that respondent No.3 gave notice to the petitioner on 30-04-2004, giving particulars about the transaction. Thereafter, since the petitioner could not respond to the notice, respondent No.3 preferred an application before the District Magistrate being Misc. Application No.88 of 2005. The District Magistrate by an order dated 28-10-2005 passed an order permitting respondent No.3 to take police help in the matter of taking possession. Hence, this petition. 4. So far as the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to point out as to how the said provisions is ultra vires. The Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. V/s. Union of India and Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 311, has considered the provisions of the Act and its constitutional validity is already upheld by the Supreme Court. In view of the same, there is no substance so far as the challenge made by the petitioners in this behalf. 5. So far as the challenge to the order of the District Magistrate is concerned, in our view, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal, in this behalf and the petition cannot be straightway entertained before this Court. In view of the above, the writ petition is rejected. Rule discharged. 3 WP 926 of 2006 6. If the petitioners so desire, they can adopt appropriate remedy if the possession is taken by the Bank. The amount deposited by the petitioners if not withdrawn, respondent No.3 may withdraw the same subject to the adjustment of the amount in case the petitioners adopt further proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )