1. The competency of Ext.P1 notice is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are the borrowers in a loan transaction. They got a housing loan ofRs.1,00,00,000/-from the respondent bank mortgaging an apartment owned by them. The petitioners allege that they have remitted nearly Rs.76,00,000/- in repayment and; even after the aforesaid payment, the respondent bank was threatening that huge amounts are due from them. Though the petitioners disputed the amount, the respondent bank caused Ext.P1 lawyer's notice to be issued on the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. The petitioners allege that a lawyer is not competent to issue such a notice as he is not an authorized officer of the respondent bank. Thus, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. Arguments have been heard.

4. While the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the lawyer, who issued the notice on the petitioners, is not an authorized officer within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Security Interest Rules, 2002, the learned counsel for the respondent bank would contend that Ext.P1 notice is legally competent.

5. Section 13 o