WPMS No. 1640 of 2009 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has questioned the notice issued under sub-Clause (2) of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. From a bare perusal of the provision of sub-Clause (2) of Section 13 and sub-Clause 3 (a) of Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that upon receipt of the notice, the borrower, namely, the petitioner can make appropriate representation and raise objection before the Bank concerned. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the security which is sought to be sold is a lease land which is outside the purview of the Act in pursuance of provision of Section 31 (e) of the Act. Be that as it may. Such objection can be raised by the petitioner before the Bank concerned and if such an objection is raised, the Bank would accordingly decide the matter. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing the objection before the authority concerned. The Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Vs. Union of India, J.T. 2004 (4) SC 308 has precisely held that the Court should not ordinarily entertain such petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 29.07.2011 Shiv