R. Mahadevan, J.

In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioner seeks to quash the public notice dated 14.7.2015, issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and the seizure notice dated 1.10.2015 issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ministry of Finance and to direct them to drop all further proceedings against the Petitioner Bank.

2. The case of the Petitioner is as follows:-

a. The Petitioner Bank along with other consortium banks had granted various credit facilities to the 2nd Respondent Company, for which various loan security documents to cover the credit facilities were executed by the 2nd Respondent Company. The Petitioner bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 118.31 crores on 23.02.2009 to the 2nd Respondent Company, for which they executed joint security documents on 26.3.2009 and renewed the credit facilities on 29.6.2009, vide sanction letter dated 29.6.2009, whereby enhanced the credit facilities to Rs. 118.44 crores. They issued the sanction letter on 23.7.2010, renewing the working capital limits and sanctioning funded interest loan to the tune of Rs. 99.57 crores. The 2nd Respondent Company also filed Form 8 before the Registrar of Companies, confirming the charge created on their movable and immovable securities. Subsequently, the 2nd Respondent Company committed default in repaying the outstanding loan amount to the other consortium banks. Hence, the Petitioner bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, by issuing a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, dated 4.4.2013 and possession notices under Section 13(4) of the Act, dated 10.6.2013, 11.6.2013 and 9.7.2013. However, the 2nd Respondent did not repay the outstanding amount of Rs. 420,20,84,488.46 as on 15.12.2013 payable to the consortium banks. The 2nd Respondent Company is due and liable to pay a sum of Rs. 149 crores as on 31.5.2015 with interest and penal interest to the Petitioner Bank under the aforesaid credit facilities.

b. The Petitioner Bank caused sale notices from 20.12.2013 to 31.8.2015 for auction to recover the outstanding loan amount. While so, the 1st Respondent (JDGFT) caused a public notice on 14.7.2015 in the English Daily, "The Hindu", informing the public to first settle the revenue due to the Government towards the custom duty. In the mean time, the 1st Respondent (JDGFT) sent a letter dated 25.6.2015 to the Petitioner Bank, stating that the customs duty payable by the 2nd Respondent works out to Rs. 60 crores, but whereas in the said public notice, they claimed a sum of Rs. 100 crores. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent (DRI) issued the impugned seizure notice dated 1.10.2015, directing the Petitioner not to conduct any sale of the machineries in favour of any third parties in lieu of import duty liability of Rs. 14.65 crores with interest of Rs. 22.85, payable by the 2nd Respondent herein and stating that they would seize the machineries under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The Petitioner bank sent a reply dated 22.7.2015 to the 1st Respondent (JDGFT) to recall the said public notice, but, no action has been taken so far. As against the seizure notice, the auction purchaser M/s. Textech Indo (I) Pvt Limited, who purchased a portion of the hypotheticated machineries under the SARFAESI proceedings, had already approached this Court in WP.No.30446 of 2015, which is pending. In such circumstances, these Writ Petition have been filed for the relief as stated above.

3. Though the 2nd Respondent Company is represented by a counsel, no counter has been filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent Company. The 1st Respondent (JDGFT) alone has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is averred as follows:-

a. The Petitioner bank cannot challenge the public notice without authorities from the consortium banks. Though in all the imports of the 2nd Respondent Company, the customs duty foregone works out to 95% to 97%,