Judgment :- D.Murugesan, J. Both the writ appeals relate to the challenge to the tender notice bearing nos.2/2005 & 3/2005 published in "Dinamani" Tamil daily dated 7.3.2005. As the grounds of challenge are common, both the writ appeals are disposed of by this order. 2. The State Bank of India, SSI Branch, Bhavani, a secured creditor, initiated action to recover the dues from the borrowers under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Pursuant to the said action, it caused two tender notices bearing nos.2/2005 & 3/2005 dated 7.3.2005 in "Dinamani" Tamil daily calling for bids for sale of movable and immovable properties by means of sealed tenders. The last date for receiving the tenders was fixed at 17.00 hrs. on 22.3.2005. Due to the strike by the officers' of the said bank, the branch did not function on 22.3.2005 and, therefore, the tenders were accepted till 17.00 hrs. on 23.3.2005. The bank received 14 tenders in respect of the notification no.2/2005 and 14 tenders in respect of the notification no.3/2005. The tenders were opened on 24.3.2005 before a Tender Committee consisting of three members of the branch. One K.K.Rangasamy of Komarapalayam was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.7,81,000/-. His offer was accepted and he also remitted the entire sale consideration. 3. W.P.Nos.11209 & 11214 of 2005 were filed questioning the auction on the ground that though the last date for submitting tenders was fixed on 22.3.2005, the tenders were not received on the said date and the tenders were accepted till 17.00 hrs. on 23.3.2005. According to the writ petitioners, though they were ready to bid on 22.3.2005 with relevant papers along with the demand drafts, a notice was affixed in front of the bank on 22.3.2005 to the effect that the sealed tenders will not be received on 22.3.2005 due to the bank officers' strike and the sealed tenders will not be opened on 22.3.2005 and that the last date for receipt of tenders and the opening date will be intimated later. On hearing from some local persons, the petitioners came to know that the tenders were being received by the authorised officer on the afternoon of 23.3.2005. Both the petitioners submitted their tenders at about 4.55 p.m. on 23.3.2005. On hearing from some local persons, the petitioners came to know that the tenders were being received by the authorised officer on the afternoon of 23.3.2005. Both the petitioners submitted their tenders at about 4.55 p.m. on 23.3.2005. They were informed by the authorised officer that the tenders will be opened at 11.00 a.m. on 24.3.2005. Though the petitioners were present at the time fixed on the said date, the tenders were not opened, but they were informed at about 5.30 p.m. on 24.3.2005 by the Chief Manager of the bank that the tender of Mr.K.K.Rangasamy, the second respondent was accepted as he was the highest bidder. On the above averments, the tender notices were questioned in the writ petitions on the ground that the tender and contractual works are regulated by the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Rules made thereunder. The learned single Judge, by an order dated 29.4.2005, dismissed the writ petitions. It is against the said order, the present writ appeals have been filed. 4. The respondent bank had initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Securitisation Act") against the debtors. The Securitisation Act was enacted to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. As the then existed legal framework relating to commercial transactions did not keep pace with the changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms, which resulted in slow pace of recovery of defaulting loans and mounting levels of non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions, the Central Government constituted the Narasimham Committee I and II and Andhyarujina Committee for the purpose of examining banking sector reforms and the need for changes in the legal system. The said Committees suggested for a separate enactment empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of the securities and to sell them without the intervention of the Court. Hence, the Securitisation Act was enacted. The Securitisation Act applies to the recovery of debts by the banks and financial institutions. The said Committees suggested for a separate enactment empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of the securities and to sell them without the intervention of the Court. Hence, the Securitisation Act was enacted. The Securitisation Act applies to the recovery of debts by the banks and financial institutions. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 defines "bank" as meaning, (i) a banking company; or (ii) a corresponding new bank; or (iii) the State Bank of India; or (iv) a subsidiary bank; or (v) such other bank which the Central Government may, by notification, specify for the purpose of the Act. Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 defines a "borrower" as meaning, any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has been given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by any bank or financial institution and includes a person who becomes borrower of a securitisation company or reconstruction company consequent upon acquisition by it of any rights or interest of any bank or financial institution in relation to such financial assistance. Clause (ha) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 defines "debt" as meaning, any liability inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil Court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting and legally recoverable. 5. Chapter III of the Securitisation Act relates to enforcement of security interest. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the Court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the Court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 contemplates that where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4) of the Act. Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 13 empowers the secured creditor to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset, in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2) of Section 13. 6. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 read with sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act, the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") were framed which came into force w.e.f. 20.9.2002. Rule 4 contemplates that if the amount mentioned in the demand notice is not paid within the time specified therein, the authorised officer shall proceed to realise the amount by adopting any one or more of the measures specified in sub-section (4) of Section 13. Rule 4 contemplates that if the amount mentioned in the demand notice is not paid within the time specified therein, the authorised officer shall proceed to realise the amount by adopting any one or more of the measures specified in sub-section (4) of Section 13. Rule 6 relates to the sale of movable secured assets, which reads as under:- "(1) The authorised officer may sell the movable secured assets taken possession under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 in one or more lots by adopting any of the following methods to secure maximum sale price for the assets, to be so sold-- (a) obtaining quotations from parties dealing in the secured assets or otherwise interested in buying such assets; or (b) inviting tenders from the public; or (c) holding public auction; or (d) by private treaty. (2) The authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the movable secured assets, under sub-rule (1): Provided that if the sale of such secured assets is being, effected by either inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the secured creditor shall cause a public notice in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language, having sufficient circulation in that locality by setting out the terms of sale, which may include,-- (a) details about the borrower and the secured creditor; (b) description of movable secured assets to be sold with identification marks or numbers, if any, on them; (c) reserve price, if any, and the time and manner of payment; (d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed; (e) depositing earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor; (f) any other thing which the authorised office considers it material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of movable secured assets. (3) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing." Rule 8 relates to sale of immovable secured assets. 7. A conjoined reading of the above provisions of the Act and the Rules shows that the Securitisation Act is a complete code containing an inbuilt mechanism for securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest. 7. A conjoined reading of the above provisions of the Act and the Rules shows that the Securitisation Act is a complete code containing an inbuilt mechanism for securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest. The said Act has also been upheld by the Supreme Court, except Section 17(2) relating to deposit of 75% of the amount as a condition precedent for preferring appeal, in "Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India ( AIR 2004 SC 2371 )". The secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full the liabilities within sixty days from the date of notice, as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 13. In the event of failure to honour the notice, the secured creditor may recourse to take possession of the assets of the borrower and also sell the same for realising the secured asset, as contemplated under clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 13. The procedure to be adopted after issuance of notice of sixty days is contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules and the procedure for effecting sale of the movable secured assets is contemplated under Rule 6 and the procedure for sale of the immovable secured assets is contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules. In this regard, the authorised officer is empowered to take steps for sale of the movable and immovable secured assets under Rules 6 & 8 of the Rules. 8. In terms of sub-rule (a) of Rule 2, "authorised officer" means an officer not less than a chief manager of a public sector bank or equivalent, as specified by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the secured creditor or nay other person or authority exercising powers of superintendence, direction and control of the business or affairs of the secured creditor, as the case may be, to exercise the rights of a secured creditor. The said authorised officer is empowered to sell the movable secured assets by various methods including inviting tenders from the public. An absolute discretion is given to the authorised officer to adopt a method for sale of the secured assets namely, he would be entitled to obtain quotations from parties dealing in the secured assets or otherwise interested in buying such assets or inviting tenders from the public or holding public auction or by private treaty. An absolute discretion is given to the authorised officer to adopt a method for sale of the secured assets namely, he would be entitled to obtain quotations from parties dealing in the secured assets or otherwise interested in buying such assets or inviting tenders from the public or holding public auction or by private treaty. As a foolproof mechanism is contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the authorised officer is mandated to follow only the provisions of Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules. 9. The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 43 of 1998) was enacted by the State Government to provide for transparency in the public procurement and to regulate the procedure in inviting and accepting tenders by the Departments of Government, Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory Boards etc. A plain reading of the said Act shows that it is not applicable to the tender procedures contemplated by the banks or financial institutions under the Securitisation Act. Only in the event the banks or financial institutions are also mandated to follow the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, the grievance of the appellants that the tenders were not opened in their presence as contemplated under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act would be justified. In view of the fact that the provisons of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act are not applicable to the sale of the secured assets, both movable and immovable, under the provisions of the Securitisation Act, the contention of the appellants that the tenders were not opened in their presence cannot be accepted. Under the Securitisation Act there is no requirement for the authorised officer to open the tenders only in the presence of the tenderers. In the absence of such provision, the appellants cannot seek as a matter of right that the tenders should be opened in their presence. Hence, we find no merit in the writ appeals. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.A.M.Ps. are also dismissed.