JUDGMENT : J.M. MALIK (Chairperson) 1. The learned DRT dismissed the application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SRFAESI Act), vide order dated 8th May, 2007, moved by the appellants/applicants, with the prayer to quash the notices dated 3rd August, 2004, 10th November, 2004 and 16th March, 2005 issued by the respondent Bank. The learned DRT dismissed the petition on other grounds which were not raised or pressed before me. The grouse of the appellants is that, although, other grounds which were set up in the petition, yet, the same were never adjudicated by the learned DRT. 2. The first submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the notice under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act dated 3rd August, 2004 goes to reveal that the total amount of Rs.61,75,842.00 was due to the appellants as on 31st October, 2003 plus interest as applicable and since the appellants had defaulted in the payment of the aforesaid dues, therefore, their account stood NPA in accordance with the RBI guidelines. The appellants were given 60 days, time for disposing the above said liabilities. In response to the said notice, the appellants sent reply through their counsel on 23rd September, 2004. The reminder-cum-reply under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act was sent by the Bank on 10th November, 2004 wherein an amount of Rs.70,02,748.00 was shown due as on the said date. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants half-heartedly argued that the Bank has illegally declared the account NPA on 31st October, 2003 without waiting for mandatory period of 180 days from the date of over due prescribed under the RBI guidelines. He has cited an authority reported in 295095, wherein it was held that, “RBI directives have not only statutory flavour, any contravention thereof or any default in compliance therewith is punishable under Sub-section (4) of Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Court can act on an assumption that transactions or dealings have taken place and accounts maintained by Banks in conformity with RBI directives.” 4. Without sound reasoning no argument will cohere. It must be borne in mind that the appellants had been granted loan in the sum of Rs.60.00 lacs in cash credit on 5th September, 1999. The Court can act on an assumption that transactions or dealings have taken place and accounts maintained by Banks in conformity with RBI directives.” 4. Without sound reasoning no argument will cohere. It must be borne in mind that the appellants had been granted loan in the sum of Rs.60.00 lacs in cash credit on 5th September, 1999. The notice under Section 13(2), of the SRFAESI Act, dated 3rd August, 2004 clearly goes to show that the appellant had defaulted to pay off the loan to the extent of Rs.61,75,842.00 which also included interest pertaining to 31st October, 2003. The learned Counsel could not give further explanation in this context. No guidelines of RBI saw the light of the day to show the above said violation or default. This argument is devoid of merit and has to be eschewed out of consideration. 5. The most telling argument urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that auction sale notice did not grant 30 days, time as provided under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The same is reproduced as follows: 9. Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.- (1) No sale of immovable property under these rules shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to Sub-rule (6) or notice of sale has been served to the borrower. (2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the higher sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor: Provided that.... (3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately pay a deposit of 25% of the amount of the sale price, to the authorised officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be sold again. Again Rule 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 runs as follows: 6. (3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately pay a deposit of 25% of the amount of the sale price, to the authorised officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be sold again. Again Rule 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 runs as follows: 6. Sale of movable secured assets.-(1) The authorised officer may sell the movable secured assets taken possession of 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, so to be 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.... 6. In the case in hand, the notice under Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was issued on 10th June, 2006, which reads: Auction Sale Notice Notice of intended sale under Rule 8(6) of the Security (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 under the SRFAESI Act, 2002: Undermentioned borrowers/guarantors failed to repay the standing debts of our Bank as mentioned hereunder plus future interest in dental charges. The repayment was secured by equitable mortgage of properties mentioned below. Bank through its authorised officers took possession of the mortgaged property under Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Now the Bank intends to sell these properties by way of public auction. The properties shall not be sold below the reserve price mentioned below. Intending bidders are required to deposit the earnest money (10% of the bid amount for the each property/assets) by way of pay order/Bank draft favouring Central Bank of India, Dehradun besides submitting proof of their having means of deposit the bid amount (the sealed tenders may be submitted by post or personal delivery so as to reach the undersigned at Central Bank of India Regional Office, Aslley Hall, Dehradun - 248001 on or before 28th June, 2006 by 11 a.m.). The tenders shall be opened on 29th June, 2006 at 2 p.m. Highest bidder shall have to deposit 25% of bid amount inclusive of earnest money by way of pay order/Bank draft favouring Central Bank of India, Dehradun within 24 hours failing which the earnest money deposit paid shall be forfeited. Successful bidder/purchaser shall deposit balance 75% of bid amount on or before 15th day from the date of confirmation of sale by the secured creditors failing which the amount already deposited will be forfeited. The properties are to be sold on “As is what is basis” and bid shall be subject to approval of Bank authorised officer. All expenses relating to stamp duty, registration, etc. shall be borne by the successful purchaser. The notice without prejudice of any remedy available to the Bank and without prejudice to Bank’s right to recover it from borrowers mentioned hereunder. Bank reserves its right to reject any tender/bid without assigning any reasons. 7. It is thus clear that the notice of auction sale was not happily worded. The tenders were to be opened on 29th June, 2006 and the highest bidder was to deposit 25% of the bid amount inclusive of earnest money by way of pay order/Bank draft within 24 hours. It, therefore, means that the said sale of the property was to be concluded on 29th-30th June, 2006. The sale was to come to an end on 29th June itself. No clear time of 30 days was provided. As per the object and spirit of the above said rules, 30 days time should be granted to the borrower before the auction purchaser is to crop up. It is difficult to fathom as to how the appellant can be confronted with auction purchaser before the expiry of 30 days. It is clear that object to Rule 6(2) is to give sufficient time to the borrower for paying off the loan within thirty days. The Bank officer cannot cut down or curtail the said period of time granted by the rules. It appears the said Bank official committed an egregious mistake in not giving the borrower the time of thirty days. The sale was started before the thirty days and auction purchaser was to be selected before expiry of thirty days. 8. The Bank officer cannot cut down or curtail the said period of time granted by the rules. It appears the said Bank official committed an egregious mistake in not giving the borrower the time of thirty days. The sale was started before the thirty days and auction purchaser was to be selected before expiry of thirty days. 8. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 265156, held that the statutory authorities cannot deviate from the statutory provisions and any deviation, if so made, is required to be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by the Courts invalidating such actions in violation of the statutory Rules and Regulations. A similar view had been reiterated by the Apex Court in 258458, 297959 and 281795. 9. When the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. It has been hitherto uncontroverted legal position that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim “Expresso unius est exclusio alterius”, meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following other course is not permissible [vide State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna AIR 1980 SC 327 ; 270573 ; Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh I (2004) CCR 61 : AIR 2004 SC 486 ; and Indian Banks Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service AIR 2004 SC 2615 ]. 10. Moreover, the present notice has otherwise become infructuous as no bidder has turned up in response to the said notice. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the said notice was challenged before the learned DRT, therefore, further action could not be taken in this context as the operation of said notice was stayed. However, nothing will debar the Bank to initiate the proceedings against the borrower by fresh action as per law. 11. It must be mentioned here that the learned DRT had no occasion to decide the question of legality and validity of auction notice dated 10th June, 2006. However, nothing will debar the Bank to initiate the proceedings against the borrower by fresh action as per law. 11. It must be mentioned here that the learned DRT had no occasion to decide the question of legality and validity of auction notice dated 10th June, 2006. The application under Section 17 was moved before him on 25th April, 2005. The auction sale notice was issued subsequently on 10th June, 2006. However, it appears that this point was raised by the appellants for the first time before this Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank did not raise any objection in this context. The requirement of law is that the Appellate Tribunal shall be guided by the principle of natural justice. In order to promote the natural justice, I accept the plea raised by the Counsel for the appellants at this stage, because it is subsequent event which should be taken note by the adjudicating authority and, therefore, this question stands decided. 12. The Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the appellants have charged excessive interest. There lies no legal impediment in charging the agreed rate of interest. Counsel for the respondent Bank pointed out that they have charged the interest as per the agreement reached between the parties dated 7th May, 1999, D.P. Note dated 24th May, 2002 wherein the appellants agreed to pay interest @ PLR + 4% per annum with quarterly rests and similar agreements dated 24th May, 2000 and 24th May, 2002. There lies no rub in charging the compound interest as agreed. However, the case depends upon the due demand to be raised by the Bank. 13. In the result the appeal stands partly accepted. The auction sale notice dated 10th June, 2006 stands quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Copies of this judgment be furnished to the parties as per law. Another copy of the same be also sent to the learned DRT forthwith.