CWP No. 2378 of 2009 13.7.2009 Present: Mr. Rohit Suri and Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocates for the petitioner. The petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy provided under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner cannot be permitted to avail two remedies simultaneously. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Gate Auto Service Station and others versus B.P.C.L. Agra Th. Sr. Div. Manager and others, 2009 (8) Scale 810 have held that two remedies cannot be pursued at the same time. Their Lordships have held as under: “2. In that view, it will not be possible for us to entertain this appeal. In fact, the writ petitions itself could not have been entertained on the ground that two parallel remedies could not have been pursued by the appellants at one and the same time. The writ petition was rightly dismissed. We do not find any merit in these appeals. They are dismissed without any order as to costs. This order should not be viewed as any expression on the merits of the matters.” The statutory remedy of appeal provided under the aforesaid Act is equally efficacious and effective. Accordingly, the Court shall not interfere in this case since the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 13, 2009. (cr)