A. P. BHANGALE, J.:- Heard, Rule. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 waives notice. By consent, taken up for hearing forthwith.

2. The petitioners seek to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and propriety of the notice dated 5-1-2010, issued by the Tahsildar, Palghar, District Thane, informing the petitioners to handover possession of the immoveable and moveable properties to respondent No.2-the Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (ARCIL), within 15 days from the date of the notice. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 24-8-2009, passed by the learned District Magistrate, Thane and for issuance of a direction prohibiting respondent Nos.1 and 2 from taking actual possession of the factory situated at Plot No.D-24, MIDC, Tarapur, Taluka Palghar, District Thane, without following the procedure laid down in Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are thus:

The petitioner No.1 is a duly registered Public Limited Company and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are its Directors. The petitioners are seeking to protect their factory premises situated at Plot No.D-24, MIDC, Tarapur, Taluka Palghar, District Thane from being proceeded against by or on behalf of the secured creditors. It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1-company had in March, 2002 approached respondent No.1-State Bank of India for financial assistance as the petitioners were indebted to Bharat Co-operative Bank and needed further finances. The respondent No.1 agreed to sanction Rs.3 crores (Three crores) and issued a Pay Order of Rs.l.94 crores in favour of Bharat Co-operative Bank and took over the accounts. The petitioners were required to complete formalities to secure the debt, furnish undertakings, etc., to enable respondent No.1 to release funds towards the working capital to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, respondent No.1 had insisted upon the petitioners to complete a Tripartite Agreement with M.M.C. and the petitioners complied with the requirements of respondent No.1 on 10-5-2002. But in the absence of the provision for working capital, the petitioners were unable to carry on their business and were facing a severe financial crunch.

4. On 10-7-2002, respondent No.1 issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioners to pay the amounts demanded, which was challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No.2088 of 2003 in this Court. By an interim order passed in the said writ petition on 8-9-2003, respondent No.1 was allowed to take symbolic possession of the property in question and not to disturb the actual physical possession. The respondent No.1 assigned the debt in favour of respondent No.2, who took out Chamber Summons No.392 of 2006. Consequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the constitutional validity of Section 13(2) of the Act, the petitioners withdrew their Writ Petition on 152-2007. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Original Application No.65 of 2004 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and on 23-6-2009 obtained an order from the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, for taking forcible possession. The petitioners, thereafter, filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1315 of 2009 in this Court. By an interim order dated 7-7-2009, this Court observed that the symbolic possession shall vest in the respondents but the physical possession shall not be disturbed. As the interim order was continued by this Court with a direction to the petitioners to argue the original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, on 7-92009 the petitioners withdrew Writ Petition No.1315 of 2009 and filed an application before the DRT-III being Application No. 136 of 2009,