JUDGMENT : AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. Heard Mr. G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has moved the Court against the notice for sale issued under Rule 8(5) and (6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 dated 03.12.2021 with regard to the secured asset belonging to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to Covid-19 as the repayment schedule could not be adhered to, the account became N.P.A and the Bank has taken recourse to provisions of the SARFAESI Act but the procedure prescribed is not valid. It is submitted that the petitioners are ready to repay the amount after restructuring and they would pay the difference amount to make the account active. 4. When the Court called upon learned counsel to disclose as to what amount the petitioners are ready to pay upfront to show their bona fide, learned counsel submitted that they would pay 10%. 5. The Court finds such offer to be too low. The petitioners were aware of the conditions of such sanction and if there has been breach of such condition relating to repayment, the agency, being a financial institution can take recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the Court would not issue any direction to the lending agency with regard to any restructuring, which has to be done by the agency concerned as per the scheme and the Court would not interfere in the same. 6. For reasons aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, it is open to the petitioners to approach the State Bank of India with regard to any scheme or offer they may have for reviving of the loan or for making payment of the amount due, which shall be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the present order. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending also, stand disposed of.