1. These writ petitions are filed seeking direction for consideration of the petitioners representations, Ext. P11 in WP (C) No:35887/09 and Ext.P9 in WP(C) No:35932/09, In both these cases the petitioners are establishments which availed loans from the respondent Bank and proceedings are pending under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESl Act), which are initiated consequent to default committed in repayment. It is evident that in both these cases the respondents have already issued notices under S. 13(2) of the SARFAESl Act. On a perusal of the representations mentioned above, it is revealed that the petitioners are seeking re-structuring of the loans/advances in view of guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

2. Heard, counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned standing counsel opposed the writ petitions on the ground that the respondent Bank is not amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003 (3) KLT 876 (SC)). It is further contended