INDERJEET SINGH, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- 'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (1) By a suitable writ, order or direction, quash and set aside the impugned notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 18.7.2019 and 11.1.2020 and all consequential actions thereto issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioners; (2) By a suitable writ, order or direction, quash and set aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the petitioners before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur; (3) By suitable writ, order or direction, direct the respondent NBFC to consider the restructuring proposal of the Petitioners dated 9.7.2019 and further proposals dated 20.9.2019 and 6.10.2019 in respect of the loan facility of the petitioners as per the guidelines/ circulars of the RBI; (4) By suitable writ, order or direction, restrain the respondent NBFC authorities from taking any further action(s) against the petitioners and also direct them to remove the symbolic possession under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 over the properties of the Petitioners; (5) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have issued the notices under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as '?Act of 2002') in violation of the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 17.3.2016. Counsel further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of M/s. Priyankas Vs. Union of India (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21715/2019) granted the interim relief to the petitioner in similar matter vide order dated 19.12.2019.
(3.) Counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are having an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the DRT under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.;