WPMS 848 OF 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Advocate for the petitioners. The petitioners had earlier challenged the notice issued u/S 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which was dismissed by an order dated 10th March, 2011. The court finds that the notice issued u/S 13 (2) of the Act was issued in the year 2008 and the petitioners approached this writ court after almost three years. The period to discharge the liability u/S 13 (2) of the Act is 16 days which the petitioners not only availed but kept on lingering the matter for three years. Now, the notice u/S 13 (4) read with Rule 8 and 9 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 has been issued wherein the respondent-bank indicated its intention to take possession of the premises in question. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are willing to clear the liability and only prays that some breathing time may be granted. The Court finds that much water has flown since the initial issuance of the notice. The petitioners have not been able to pay their dues nor satisfy the respondent-bank. Consequently, the contention of the petitioners that they are willing to pay a sum of Rs.4 lacs and would pay the rest in instalments cannot be considered by this Court since the court does not find any illegality in the impugned notice. The writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioners to approach the respondent-bank and give an offer with regard to the clearance of their dues. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 09.05.2011 Shiv