Hon’bl Shishir Kumar, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 8.2.2006 passed by respondent No. 3, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, further prayer is to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 10.2.2006 passed by respondent No. 4, Annexure-2 to the writ petition and 15.2.2006 passed by respondent No. 3, Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The further prayer is also to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hand over the possession of the entire premises situate at A-1, Sector-59, Noida.

2. The facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner, who is a nationalized bank, in usual course of business, granted a term loan of Rs. 3 Crores to respondent No. 7. A copy of the agreement dated 10.2.2003 between the petitioner and respondent No. 7 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The said hypothecation agreement was in respect of plant and machinery as well as all the other fixed assets. So far as 158 sewing machines and 13 embroidery machineries are concerned, the petitioner has a first charge upon the said assets whereas in respect of all other fixed assets, the petitioner has second charge inasmuch as the first charge in respect of other assets is with the Punjab National Bank. In the hypothecation agreement it has been mentioned that the factory is situate at A-1, Sector-59, Noida, U.P. It has been informed by respondent No. 7 accordingly. The agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 7 was duly registered with the Registrar of Companies on 11.3.2003. In pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, an amount of Rs. 2,95,38,000/- was disbursed to respondent No. 7. However, respondent No. 7 defaulted in making the payment and in spite of the repeated reminders, did not make the payment. Compelled with the aforesaid circumstances a notice under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002) was issued to respondent No. 7 on 11.6.2004. Even after the receipt of the aforesaid notice, respondent No. 7 failed to make the payment, therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner decided to take possession of the secured assets in exercise of powers under Section 13 (2) of the Act of 2002. The goods hypothecated of the petitioner being situate at A-1, Sector 59, Noida, the petitioner sought help of the City Magistrate—vide its letter dated 28.2.2006 who directed the Station House Officer, Sector-58, Noida to provide adequate force so that the petitioner may be in a position to take the possession. The adequate force was provided to the petitioner and the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 38 (4) of the Act and took the possession of the secured assets over which the petitioner had the first charge on 31.1.2006. A copy of the possession notice Panchnama and inventory has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.

3. At the time of taking of the possession the Director of respondent No. 7 namely Sri Lokesh Chopra was present but he refused to put his signatures on the inventory, which was prepared in his presence. The possession having been taken away from the hands of respondent No. 7, the respondent No. 7 seems to have influenced respondent No. 5 through respondent No. 6 and a new dispute was sought to be created by respondent No. 6 alleging that the factory premises belong to respondent No. 6 and the petitioner has got no power to seal the factory premises of respondent No. 6. The petitioner was not given a copy of any such complaint as yet and was directed to meet respondent No. 4 on 3.2.2006 who had assumed the jurisdiction for making the inquiry on the alleged complaint. Respondent No. 4 demanded documents from the petitioner, which were duly supplied by the petitioner on 3.2.2006. The petitioner again demanded a copy of the complaint but the said complaint w