1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Wri t Petition No. 1804/2008 M/s. Arean Agro Processor Prop. Gopal Daulatramji Gupta .Vs. Union of India and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mishra, Asstt. Solicitor General for respondent no.1. Mr. S. P. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 10th November, 2008. Heard Mr. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 14.8.2007 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Securitization Act” for short) and finally by notice dated 5.3.2008 the bank decided to take over possession of the mortgaged assets. We have perused the notice dated 5.3.2008 and it is obvious that the bank has exercised its 2 powers under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act to take possession of the mortgaged assets. As per Section 17 of the Securitization Act, the action taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, is appealable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and hence, this petition cannot be entertained. The petitioner has referred to the interlocutory orders passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.17573/2007. The applicability of the Notification dated 28.1.2003 issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Finance making Securitization Act to the Cooperative Banks was a subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 4056/2007 before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court and the petition was dismissed. The petitioner contends that when the issue of the applicability of the Notification dated 28.1.2003 is pending before the Supreme Court, this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requires to be entertained. We are not impressed by this submission and, in any case, all the issues raised in this petition can be raised in an appeal under Section 17 of the 3 Securitization Act. Hence, the petition is rejected with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization Act. The period of pendency of this petition from 19.4.2008 be taken into consideration for deciding the issue of delay, if any, in filing the appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization Act, if such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court shall continue to operate for a period of two weeks from today and it is made clear that any such prayer for interim relief will be considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, on its own merits, and without being influenced by the interlocutory orders passed by us. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.