JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners are common in both these writ petitions. 2. In W.P. (C) No. 20548 of 2021, it is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to certain reliefs based on guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India to help businesses tide over the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the 3rd respondent bank to accept Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioners and to consider the grant of relief in terms of Ext.P4 circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The writ petition was filed on 24-09-2021, apprehending that pending consideration of the matter by the respondent bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) would be continued against the petitioners causing serious prejudice and injury to them. 3. W.P. (C) No. 25052 of 2022 has been filed challenging a notice published by the respondent bank under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The notice in question has been annexed to the writ petition as Ext.P7. 4. When the above writ petitions came up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank that the petitioners have actually got the benefit of moratorium as no action has been taken by the Bank against the petitioners till the issuance of the notice produced as Ext.P7 along with W.P. (C) No. 25052/2022. It is submitted that even today no steps have been taken by the bank to take physical possession of the secured assets. It is submitted that in such circumstances these writ petitions need not be kept pending in this Court and they may be disposed of permitting the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the Tribunal in a duly constituted Securitisation Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also submitted that the period during which these writ petitions were pending by this Court can be excluded for the purposes of determining any period of limitation within which the petitioners were to approach the Tribunal for relief. 5. It is also submitted that the period during which these writ petitions were pending by this Court can be excluded for the purposes of determining any period of limitation within which the petitioners were to approach the Tribunal for relief. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank and taking note of the fact that the bank has not taken any steps other than the issuance of a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13, I am of the view that these writ petitions can be closed making it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to seek appropriate reliefs from the Tribunal as and when further proceedings are initiated against them by the respondent bank. The question as to whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of any circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India granting moratorium, has become academic, due to passage of time. 6. These writ petitions are therefore closed with the above observations. I am also of the opinion that since the proceedings are at the stage of issuance of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal as and when steps are taken by the respondent bank either under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act or under sub-section (4) of Section 13.