Judgement Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, C. J. :- This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 22-8-2008 published in the newspaper for putting the property to auction on 17th September, 2008 and for issuing a direction to the opposite party to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner accepting the balance consideration after removing encroachment from the land in dispute. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one firm, namely, M/s Maa Budhi Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd., obtained loan from the opposite party - bank and for that purpose it hypothecated the land in dispute with the bank. As the loan was not repaid the proceeding for recovery under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, had been initiated. The petitioner's case is that in spite of best efforts taken by the opposite party-bank, none came to purchase the property. Therefore, the opposite party -bank in search of a private individual for sale of the property started negotiation with the petitioner. The petitioner offered Rs. 80 lakhs as the consideration amount for the said property vide letter dated 14-2-2007 and it was finalized for a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs in the final negotiation dated 4-5-2007 (Annex. 2). Thereafter, petitioner asked opposite party - bank vide letter dated 7-5-2007 to adjust the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs which was lying in his account with the said bank. Subsequent thereto there had been correspondences between the petitioner and the opposite party - bank and the petitioner insisted the bank for removal of the encroachment on the said land and to hand over the possession of the vacant land and thereafter the petitioner will make payment of the balance amount. As it could not be materialized, no further amount has been deposited by the petitioner. Thus, the opposite party-bank initiated proceedings for disposal of the said property by issuing advertisement dated 22-8-2008 in the newspaper mentioning that the property would be put to auction on 17-9-2008. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the proposal given by the petitioner had been accepted by the opposite party - bank same could not have been turned down. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the proposal given by the petitioner had been accepted by the opposite party - bank same could not have been turned down. The bank was responsible to remove the encroachment from the land and only thereafter the petitioner could have been asked to complete his part of contractual liability and when the bank agreed by private negotiation to sell the said property to the petitioner, the bank cannot be permitted to carry out the auction by the impugned advertisement. 4. To our dismay, learned counsel for petitioner is not in a position to state as to what happened on 17th September, 2008 when the property had to be put to auction and this is a relevant question for the simple reason that third party interest might have been created. There is nothing on record to show that during private negotiation the bank had agreed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of land in dispute to the petitioner after removing the encroachment therein. More so, it is not the case of the petitioner that the encroachment had been made after acceptance of the offer of the petitioner by the bank. Mr. Mohanty is not in a position to clarify under what circumstances the property could be settled by private negotiation without putting it to auction by inviting the public at large to participate therein. His simple reply is that the petitioner is not concerned with all these things. He has submitted that there was agreement between the parties. Therefore, the opposite party bank is bound to settle the property with the petitioner exclusively. 5. It is settled legal proposition that any agreement between the parties has to be reached in consonance with the statutory provisions. In the instant case we are very much doubtful regarding competence of the bank to settle the property by private negotiation without resorting to the procedure of advertisement which the bank has advertised now. 6. In Dr. 5. It is settled legal proposition that any agreement between the parties has to be reached in consonance with the statutory provisions. In the instant case we are very much doubtful regarding competence of the bank to settle the property by private negotiation without resorting to the procedure of advertisement which the bank has advertised now. 6. In Dr. S. K. Kacker v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors., (1996) 10 SCC 734 : 1996 AIR SCW 3953 the Supreme Court held that any resolution or order which is inconsistent with the Statutory Rules, cannot be permitted to have any role to play or has any legal efficacy and, therefore, any order which is inconsistent with the Statutory Rules, has to be ignored. 7. In Union Territory Chandigarh Adm. and Ors. v. Managing Society, Goswami G. D. S. D. C., (1996) 7 SCC 665 : AIR 1996 SC 1759 the Supreme Court categorically held as under :- "A contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of law can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. The question of equitable estoppel does not arise...... because there can be no estoppel against a Statute." Admittedly, there is no agreement between the parties. Mr. Mohanty is not in a position to show any document that there was any agreement with the bank that the land will be made available to the petitioner after evicting the trespassers. 8. Mr. Mohanty has cited several judgments to show that writ petition is maintainable even in contractual matters in exceptional circumstances. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition in this regard. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any merit for interference by this Court. 10. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.