IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2114 OF 2008 Pradeep B. Pardeshi …Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents ----- Ms. Pallavi Meru i/b Leela D. Malu, for the Petitioner. Ms. A.T. Javeri, APP for the State. ---- CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 9th July, 2009 P.C.: 1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to take instructions. When this Petition came up before this Court on 1st July, 2009, the attention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was invited to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition no.2767 of 2006. The challenge in this Petition under article 227 of Constitution of India is to the order dated 1st March, 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 14 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Division Bench in the aforesaid decision has expressly : 2 : held that a remedy provided under section 17 of the said Act, 2002 is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the borrower as well as third party and therefore, ordinarily writ petitions under articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India should not be entertained against such orders. 2. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench, this petition cannot be entertained and the same is rejected by keeping the remedy by the petitioner open. This court granted ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner on 10th October 2008 which was modified on 20th October 2008. To enable the Petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy, it is directed that ad-interim relief will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. All contentions on merits are kept open. JUDGE