PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, assailing the legality and validity of the impugned public auction notice dated 15th November 2002 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure G, has presented this Writ Petition. He has further sought for a direction, directing the third respondent not to auction the house property of the petitioner situate at 1st ward, Kote Road, Doddaballapur measuring an area of 48 X 46. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that Petitioner is a businessman by profession running power looms. To improve his business and working capital, he has availed a loan for a sum of Rs. 03 lakhs from the second respondent - Bank and the petitioner has secured the said loan by hypothecating his eight power looms. The Petitioner could not keep up the payment of instalments regularly due to loss in the business and financial constraints. The second respondent - bank has raised a dispute and referred the matter to the first respondent and the first respondent acting as an Arbitrator passed the award dated 29th August 2002 and held that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs 3,92,564/- with interest at the rate of 20% from 1st January 2001 to the second respondent. In pursuance of the said award passed by the Arbitrator, the respondent No. 3 herein has attached the house property of the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 4,47,846/- as per the attachment Order dated 3rd November 2001. In pursuance of the said attachment order, the third respondent has issued the notice on 23rd November 2001 stating that if the petitioner fails to pay the amount, the house will be auctioned. In obedience of the receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has made a part payment and requested the third respondent to drop the proceedings. After accepting the part payment made by the petitioner, the said auction notice was dropped. Thereafter, once again, the third respondent has issued another auction notice dated 28th January 2002 stating that the house property of the petitioner will be put to public auction on 18th March 2002 for recovery of Rs. 3,19,680/- and the petitioner made some part payment and the said auction notice was thereafter withdrawn. Thereafter, once again, the third respondent issued another auction notice dated 3rd July 2002, intending to auction the house property belonging to the petitioner for recovery of rs. 3,19,680/- and the petitioner made some part payment and the said auction notice was thereafter withdrawn. Thereafter, once again, the third respondent issued another auction notice dated 3rd July 2002, intending to auction the house property belonging to the petitioner for recovery of rs. 2,86,593/- Again, the petitioner made some part payment towards the loan and the said public auction proposed was also dropped. When things stood thus, the petitioner came to know that the second respondent has been offering 'one time settlement' to its borrowers who have availed loan prior to 31st March 1998. Apart from this, in order to avail the benefit of the guideline issued by the Reserve Bank of India in their circular, under which certain concessions in interest rates were given to the borrowers who have obtained the loan prior to 31st March 1998 and since he has obtained the loan prior to 31st March 1998, has filed a representation before the second respondent on 3rd December 2002, requesting him to extend the benefit of one time settlement and also requested for reduction in the interest rates as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India in their circular. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he has already paid a sum of rs. 3,43,882/- towards'the loan borrowed by him from the second respondent. He was shocked and surprised when he received notice dated 15th November 2002, stating that his house property will be auctioned on 26th December 2002 for recovery of Rs 1,62,828-, instead of considering the request of the petitioner for one time settlement. Further, the petitioner has submitted that the house property proposed to be auctioned on 26th December 2002 is the only house the petitioner is having and the third respondent has not proceeded against the power looms which were hypothecated as security to the loan, but has proceeded against the house property of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has requested the second respondent and the third respondent to grant some time so that he could repay the entire loan amount. He submits that his request was neither considered nor rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the proposed auction notice dated 26th December 2002, the petitioner has presented this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the petitioner has requested the second respondent and the third respondent to grant some time so that he could repay the entire loan amount. He submits that his request was neither considered nor rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the proposed auction notice dated 26th December 2002, the petitioner has presented this Writ Petition. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and after analysing the entire , material available on record, i do not find any error or illegality in the auction notice issued by the third respondent, as contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that even though he is ready and willing to pay the entire loan amount if his representation is considered and appropriate orders are passed, the third respondent has proceeded to issue the impugned auction notice but his representation is neither considered nor disposed of by respondents 2 and 3. On the contrary, they have issued the impugned auction notice. The petitioner, without challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator, straight away, has come up with the instant Writ Petition before this Court challenging the auction notice issued by the third respondent for recovery of the balance loan amount to be paid by the petitioner to the second respondent. In my considered view, the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ petition challenging the impugned auction notice without challenging the award. However, having regard to the difficulty faced by the petitioner and the fact that whenever there is a public auction notice issued to him, he has shown his bona fide by making part payment of the loan amount inspite of his financial constraints and therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that he has no intention of cheating the second respondent, but is ready and willing to pay the loan subject to considering his representation or giving some reasonable instalments by the respondents. In my view, the said stand taken by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition, who is a senior citizen, has got some substance. In my view, the said stand taken by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition, who is a senior citizen, has got some substance. The learned Counsel appearing for second respondent- bank submits that the representation given by the petitioner has not been considered by the second respondent - Bank on the ground that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India is not applicable to the petitioner. But, the learned Counsel has failed to substantiate as to whether the said representation was considered or appropriate order has been passed for rejecting his request. The said fact is also not forth-coming even in the objections filed by the second respondent before this Court. Therefore, without going into the merits and demerits of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the bonafide shown by the petitioner, it is suffice for this Court to dispose of the Writ Petition giving some easy instalments for payment of the balance loan amount due to be paid to the second respondent. However, if the same is done, it would not in any way prejudice the second respondent - Bank. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with the following directions:-1)THE petitioner herein is permitted to make an application, before the second respondent - Bank, requesting to grant instalments for payment of balance loan amount, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, 2) The second respondent is directed to considered the request of the petitioner for grant of four instalments for payment of the balance loan amount by the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of filing of the application by the petitioner. 3) Meanwhile, the third respondent is restrained from giving effect to the impugned auction "notice dated 15th November 2002 and the same may be kept in abeyance till the petitioner comes forward and agrees to pay four instalments of the balance loan amount due, as agreed between the petitioner and the second respondent, 4) However, if in case the petitioner fails to give any proposal for payment in four instalments as observed by this Court, it is open to the third respondent to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and decide the same, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 5) For the forgoing reasons, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. 6) Sri M. Keshava Reddy, learned Government Pleader is given four weeks' time to file his memo of appearance. --- *** --- .