Antony Dominic, J.

1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the 1st respondent was justified in declaring the accounts of the petitioners to be Non-Performing Assets (NPA for short).

2. The facts of the case are that petitioners 1 to 3 herein, who are conducting textile business, had availed of from the 1st respondent cash credit facilities for Rs.56 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs and Rs. 23 lakhs respectively. In so far as the 4th petitioner is concerned she had availed of a house building loan for Rs.12 lakhs. As security for the above, petitioners had offered a commercial building in Angamali Town situated in a plot of 6 cents of land. In addition to this two plots having an extent of 35 cents and 25 cents each with building therein, were also given. According to the petitioners these properties are worth at least Rs.8 crores.

3. Petitioners would submit that in 2001, on account of certain misunderstanding between the Branch Manager of the Bank and themselves, the Bank refused to renew the cash credit facility and caused a lawyer notice issued to them requiring them to repay the entire amount availed of. It is pointed out that thereafter invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) Ext. P4 notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 1-8-2007. Thereupon, petitioners submitted Ext. P11 representation dated 7-8-2007 agreeing to immediately pay Rs.25 lakhs and requesting the bank not to proceed further with Ext. P4. Even thereafter, the Bank issued Ext. P5 notice dated 13-8-2007 under Section 13(4) of the Act to which they had filed an objection. Thereupon, the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent who had instructed them to remit Rs.25 lakhs offered in Ext. P11 and in compliance thereof, they had remitted an amount of Rs.24.25 lakhs.

4. Inspite of it on 3-9-2007 Exts. P6 to P9 were issued requiring them to pay the entire amount availed of by them. They had filed Ext. P10 objection and as they apprehended further action from the Bank this writ petition was filed on 14-9-2007 seeking to quash Exts. P6 to P9 and to direct respondents 2 to 4 to renew the cash credit facility availed of by them. They also sought a further direction requiring the Bank not to take any action pursuant to Exts. P6 to P9. Subsequently, petitioners filed I.A. No. 12586 of 2007 producing Exts. P12 to P15, statements of account issued by the Bank as on 15-9-2007 which indicate that the credit availed of by them was far below the limit prescribed by the Bank.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank in which the petitioners have been described as defaulters. It is also the contention of the Bank that the renewal granted was only upto 2006 and that the petitioners were not submitting their balance-sheet, financial statements, stock statements and audit reports. Therefore even when renewal was granted by Exts. P1 to P3 it was indicated that the Bank will be reviewing the progress of the accounts in the month of August, 2006. Bank would state that the petitioners had not approached them for renewal of the facility and that in any case in view of their unsatisfactory performance, the Bank would not have renewed it.

6. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, answering the contention of the petitioners that the value of the properties mortgaged by them is more than Rs.8 crores, it is stated that there is no dispute regarding the value of the security offered by the petitioners even though the value may not be that much as narrated by them. Justifying their action in declaring the accounts to be NPA, it is stated that in so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned as against Rs.56 lakhs credit limit, the outstanding as on 31-3- 2007 was Rs.63,29,723.97 and that as against the sanctioned limit of Rs.10 lakhs for the 2nd petitioner, the outstanding was Rs.11, 20,092/-. It is further stated that a