D.K.JAIN, J.

1. Rule D.B.

2. Challenge in this bunch of writ petitions is to the legality and validity of the action taken by various banks and financial institutions under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act).

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length on common legal issues, which we propose to deal with in this judgement. We shall, however, take up each of the writ petitions separately for decision on merits. But, in order to appreciate the main controversy, giving rise to this judicial action, we shall briefly refer to the pleadings in CWP No. 2550 of 2005. These are as follows :

On 29-9-2003, the Bank issued to the petitioners a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs. 88,61,830.68 p. The petitioners filed reply to the notice on 18-10-2003 disputing their liability to pay the said amount. They asked for a copy of account and withdrawal of the notice. Thereafter, a notice, dated 28-2-2004, under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued calling upon the petitioners to deliver the possession of the secured