JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sandip Bhatt for the petitioners and learned advocate Ms. Nalini Lodha for the respondent Bank of Baroda through video conference. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for the following prayers: "a. YOUR LORDSHIP may allow this writ petition by issuing the writ of Certiorari of writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/direction or order and quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 24.01.2022 (Annexure "P/1") issued by Respondent bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. b. YOUR LORDSHIP may allow this writ petition by issuing the writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/direction or order and direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 24.02.2020 issued under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 by respondent bank (Annexure "P/2") as being arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory, in the interest of justice and equity; c. To stay pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the implementation and/or execution of impugned notice dated 24.01.2022 issued by bank and order dated 03.07.2021 passed by the Ld. DM. Gandhinagar under section 14 of the Act, 2002 and further be pleased to direct the respondent bank to maintain status-quo qua to the property being North Side Of Na Land On Block/Survey No. 604 Paiki, Adm. 5573.80 Sq. Mtrs., Open Land With Construction Thereon Adm. 1298 Sq. Mtrs., Located At Mansa, Dist. Gandhinagar till the SA No. 58/2021 being heard and decided by Ld. DRT-I Ahmedabad; d. this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order or directions as it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case;" 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 has availed the financial assistance from the respondent Bank of Baroda comprising of Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 210 Lakh and term loan of Rs. 60 Lakh in the year 2019. As the petitioner No. 1 could not pay the outstanding dues of the respondent Bank, the accounts of the petitioners were declared as Non Performing Assets (NPA). 3.1. The respondent Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act, 2002") on 24th January, 2022. 3.2. 3.1. The respondent Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act, 2002") on 24th January, 2022. 3.2. The respondent Bank has also issued a possession notice dated 19th August, 2020. The petitioners thereafter, preferred Securitisation Application No. 58 of 2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, at Ahmedabad (for short "the DRT-I") with a prayer to quash and set aside the notice issued by the respondent Bank and further to restrain the respondent Bank from taking possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioners. 3.3. The DRT-I passed the following order on 20th December, 2021: "Mr. S.C. Bhatt, ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ms. Nalini Lodha, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank appeared. Today this matter has come up for hearing on the pursis filed by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicants. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank fairly conceded that till date no specific date has been fixed for taking possession of the property in question and this fact has already been observed in order dated 22.11.2021. Also the Respondent Bank was directed to serve seven days prior intimation to the Applicants before taking possession of the property in question. As such today there is no urgency. In view of above, list the matter for hearing on 19.01.2022." 3.4. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter, the matter was posted for further hearing on 21st February, 2022 due to non-availability of the Presiding Officer in DRT-I, Ahmedabad. The respondent Bank has issued a letter dated 24th January, 2022 giving 7 days' prior intimation for taking physical possession of the assets in compliance with the directions given by the DRT-I vide order dated 20th December, 2021 passed in SA No. 58 of 2021 fixing the date of taking possession as 3rd February, 2022. 3.5. In such circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court with the aforesaid prayers. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Bhatt appearing for the petitioners submitted that the matter is pending for adjudication before the DRT-I. As the Presiding Officer is not available, the respondent Bank should be restrained from taking possession of the property in question till the adjudication of the pending Securitisation Application No. 58 of 2021 before the DRT-I. 4.1. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Bhatt appearing for the petitioners submitted that the matter is pending for adjudication before the DRT-I. As the Presiding Officer is not available, the respondent Bank should be restrained from taking possession of the property in question till the adjudication of the pending Securitisation Application No. 58 of 2021 before the DRT-I. 4.1. It was submitted that the petitioners have already availed alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and in absence of the Presiding Officer, the petitioners should not be put to any prejudice by the action of the respondent Bank. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Nalini Lodha appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the material facts by not placing on record the notice issued by the respondent Bank to the petitioner No. 1 borrower. Reference was made to the contents of the notice to the borrower issued by the respondent Bank on 24th February, 2020 to point out that all the ingredients of Sub-section 3 of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are met in the said notice and therefore, the ground taken by the petitioners for quashing the notice dated 24th January, 2022 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not maintainable. It was further submitted that the respondent Bank has disclosed the principal amount, interest amount, rate of interest alongwith the statement of accounts in the notice dated 24th February, 2020, which is not produced on record by the petitioners. 5.1. It was pointed out that the petitioners have produced the notice issued to the guarantor and not to the borrower and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as the Securitisation Application pending before the DRT-I is likely to be dismissed, in view of the fact that the petitioners have failed to point out even before the DRT-I in the securitisation application about any irregularity committed by the respondent Bank while issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners rendered by this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 159 of 2020 and 160 of 2020 would not be applicable to the facts of the case. 6. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and also perused the record as well as the copy of the notice to the borrower, as placed by learned advocate Ms. Lodha on record. 6.1. It appears that the DRT-I is not available as on today and the Securitisation Application No. 58 of 2021 is pending before the DRT-I for adjudication and therefore, any order which may be passed in this petition would affect the adjudication of the pending securitisation application before the DRT-I. 6.2. In such circumstances, only aspect required to be considered is, as to whether the respondent Bank should be restrained from taking possession of the mortgaged property during the pendency of the SA No. 58 of 2021 before the DRT-I or not. 6.3. In view of the fact that the Presiding Officer of the DRT-I is not available and the incharge Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ahmedabad passed the order on 20th December, 2021 recording the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank with no specific date has been fixed for taking possession of the property in question and the respondent Bank was directed to serve 7 days' prior intimation to the applicants before taking possession of the property in question and therefore, in such circumstances, the respondent Bank without considering the fact that the Presiding Officer of the DRT-I is absent and the charge is not given to the Presiding Officer, DRT-II and therefore, taking advantage of such situation, it appears that the respondent Bank has issued a letter dated 24th January, 2022 after the matter was adjourned to 21st February, 2022 by the Registry in absence of the Presiding Officer of DRT-I. 6.4. The respondent Bank therefore, cannot be permitted to take advantage of the situation by taking possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioners in absence of the adjudication by the DRT-I in the pending SA No. 58 of 2021. 7. In view of the above, the matter requires consideration. 7.1. Issue Rule returnable on 6th May, 2022. 7.2. The respondent Bank therefore, cannot be permitted to take advantage of the situation by taking possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioners in absence of the adjudication by the DRT-I in the pending SA No. 58 of 2021. 7. In view of the above, the matter requires consideration. 7.1. Issue Rule returnable on 6th May, 2022. 7.2. As the petitioners have made out the prima facie case by showing that inspite of there being pending proceedings before the DRT-I, the respondent Bank taking advantage of the situation that the Presiding Officer of the DRT-I is not present and has proceeded to take the possession of the property in question and therefore, balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioners. If the possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioners is taken, irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners and therefore, in the interest of justice, the respondent Bank is hereby restrained from taking possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioners during the pendency of the Securitisation Application No. 58 of 2021 before the DRT-I, Ahmedabad. Direct service is permitted today.