Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, for the petitioners and Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar and Sri Shyam Rai for the respondent No. 3-Bank.

2. Since for the purposes of deciding the issue which has arisen in this petition, the Court does not intend to dwell upon the factual aspects, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself by the judgment and order which follows.

3. These proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to assail the validity of an order dated 2.8.2017, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (as Incharge of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad) in Appeal No. 86 of 2017 which was preferred by the respondent No. 3-Bank challenging the order dated 27.2.2017, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitisation Application No. 435 of 2016, whereby the interim relief application moved by the petitioners-applicants was allowed and the respondent-Bank was restrained from taking physical possession of the secured assets during pendency of the Securitization Application; further providing that in order to recover its dues, the respondent-Bank may proceed afresh strictly under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to SARFEASI Act).

4. It appears that respondent No. 3-Bank had extended some financial facilities to the borrowing company (petitioner No. 1) to which petitioner No. 2 stood guarantor. For securing the repayment of its dues, respondent-Bank initiated proceedings under the relevant provisions of SARFEASI Act and accordingly a demand notice dated 23.11.2015 is said to have been issued under Section 13(2) of the said Act claiming a amount of Rs. 970,970,473.45/-. It has been stated that the said notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFEASI Act was resisted by the petitioners by way of making representation dated 20.1.2016 which was rejected by the respondent-Bank, vide its communication dated 9.2.2016. Thereafter, it appears that some additional representation dated 14.2.2016 was made by the petitioners to the respondent-Bank to reconsider the representation dated 20.1.2016, however, as has been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said representation dated 14.2.2016 was not replied.

5. Thereafter, a notice was issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act which has been annexed at page 84 to the petition. The document annexed at page 84 of the petition describes itself as possession notice under SARFEASI Act and further describes that it is a possession notice for immovable and movable properties in terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act, read with Rule 4(1) and Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 (herein after referred to as 2002 Rules). The notice further states that a notice was issued to the petitioners under Section 13(2) of the SARFEASI Act requiring the petitioners to repay the amount of Rs. 970,970,473.45/- alongwith further interest and other charges within 60 days and that the petitioners have failed to repay the amount as claimed by the respondent-Bank and hence, notice is being given to the petitioners as also the public in general that the authorized officer of the bank has taken “symbolic possession” of the immovable and movable properties in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act, read with Rule 4, Rule 8 and Rule 9 of 2002 Rules. By the said notice, the petitioners in particular and public in general were cautioned not to deal with the property and any dealings with the property will be subject to the charge of the Bank for the outstanding amount due.

6. The petitioners challenged the said symbolic possession not