(Single Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra) W.P. (€}No.5137/2009 (Petition U/A 226 <& Z27 of the Constitution of India) Petitioner Vs Respondents 1. Surudeo Singh Namdhari, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Sardar Pratap Singh, R/o MI6-2/53, M.P. Nagar, Korba. 2. Smt. Balbeer Kaur, aged about 36 years, W/o Surudeo Singh Namdhari, R/o MI6- 2/53, M.P. Nagar, Korba. 1. UCO Bank, through its Br-anch Manager, M.V. Market, Bilaspur 2. Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Branch Office, Korba. Present: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioners. 09.09.2009 Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition against the possession notice dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure P-5) issued rnder Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcementof Security Interest Act, 2002 (for- short 'Act,2002') as the petitioners failed to repay a sum of Rs.34,09,158/- despite demand notice dated 27.5.2009 (Annexure P-4). Case of the petitioners is that in discharge of their liability towards the respondent bank the petitioners have issued blank cheques by way of secur-ity, however, the bank submitted the cheques issued by the petitioners for encashment and the same were dishonoured by the banker of the petitioners on the ground of 'insufficient balance'. The bank has already instituted proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners due to dishonouring of cheques and now the respondents have initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, 2002 for enforcement of security. The above action of ^ jltA-i'HOAU-S "i" respondents is arbitrary and illegal. The i.'cspondcnts cannotbe proceeded ^nder the Act, 2002 in view of pendency of criminal case against the ''&>, fa B I 1 9/ petitioners under the Negotiable Instruments Act for the same cause of action. Mr. Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent-Bank cannot initiate two proceedings, one prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act and other by enforcement of security interest under the Act, 2002, as the same is r>or permissible under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. I am unable to accept th" u'oove argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. The proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act has been initiated against the petitioners on account of different cause of action due to dishonouring of cheques issued by the petitioners, whereas, the respondent bank is proceeding under Section 13 of the Act, 2002 as the petitioners failed to repay the loan even after issuance of demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, 2002. If the petitioners are aggrieved against the possession notice issuedunder Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 by the respondent Bank, they have the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 and therefore, the instant petition by the petitioners is not maintainable, as the petitioners have alterative and efficacious statutor'y remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No.l also stands dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Misiira Judge