V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. Since the orders impugned in these writ petitions and the case of the petitioners are one and the same, these writ petitions are decided by this common order. For the sake of better comprehension, they are referred to by their names.

2. Yashumathi Doshi, the petitioner in W.P. No. 25193 of 2007 is the wife of Harshad Doshi, the petitioner in W.P. No. 25194 of 2007 and these two have filed the present writ petitions seeking a certiorarified mandamus calling for the impugned communication dated 16-7-2007 of the second respondent and quash the same insofar as it relates to condition No. 2 that the possession taken over was symbolic and would be handed over to the petitioners only on "as is where is" condition and consequently direct the respondents to handover actual possession after receiving the payment of a sum of Rs. 22,38,311.47 and comply with all the other terms and conditions as set out in their acceptance contained in the impugned communication dated 16-7-2007.

3. The case of the petitioners, in short, is as under:

a. Yashumathi Doshi and Harshad Doshi were transacting with the respondent-Bank in their capacity as partners of their firm "Doshi and Doshi." One Ashok Doshi had approached the respondent-Bank seeking credit facilities for his proprietary concern by name "Premier Marketing." The petitioners had never furnished any collateral security for the facilities granted by the respondent-Bank to Ashok Doshi and as such, there is neither memorandum of deposit of title deeds nor equitable mortgage of the petitioners' property in favour of the bank. In fact, the guarantee provided for facilities were not even extended subsequently. Since there were certain disputes amongst the members of the partnership firm after 1998, the petitioners and the family of Ashok Doshi separated and probably Ashok Doshi's wife had stood in as a guarantor to avail the cash credit limits offered by the respondent-Bank. Pursuant to the retirement of Harshad Doshi as a partner, Ashok Doshi had availed cash credit facilities from the respondent-Bank to the tune of Rs. 32 lakhs which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 22 lakhs.

b. This being the position, Harshad Doshi received a letter dated 27-9-2004 from the respondent-Bank putting him on notice that the cash credit account of Premier Marketing was not managed properly. In response, Harshad Doshi sent a reply to the respondent-Bank explaining that the guarantee said to have been issued favouring the bank was not renewed and that the guarantee earlier given was long time back and that he had retired from the firm in 1998. Pursuant to this letter sent by Harshad Doshi, the respondent-Bank sent a reply to him dated 25-1 -2005 stating that he is liable in view of the equitable mortgage and guarantee agreement executed by him on 13-3-1998. Following this, Harshad Doshi addressed a letter to the respondent-Bank on 15-3-2005 seeking certain particulars from the respondent-Bank. Questioning the bank's failure to provide him with the particulars asked for by him. Yashumathi Doshi and Harshad Doshi preferred W.P. Nos. 13057 and 13058 of 2006 in which this Court directed them to file their objections under Section 13(3)A and accordingly, they filed their objections before the respondent-Bank and while so, the respondent-Bank issued a possession notice to the petitioners and took possession of the properties stated in the possession notice. However, the petitioners, with a view to put an end to the dispute with the respondent-Bank and in exercise of the rights available to them under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Act"), sent a letter dated 10-7-2007 through their counsel agreeing to pay the bank on the condition of release of documents and handing over of possession by the respondent-Bank. In reply, the second respondent addressed a letter to the petitioners stating that the possession would be handed