JUDGMENT : 1. As much as common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in these two writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.6415 of 2009. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek for directions by way of Mandamus, questioning the validity of Memo No.19201/Coop.iii(1)/2005-1, dated 18.04.2006, issued by the 1st respondent-Government and also the consequential proceedings of the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 28.04.2006, and also seek to declare the sale of property affected in favour of respondents 5 to 11 as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same, with a consequential direction to the 4th respondent-Bank to sell the property in public auction and appropriate the sale proceeds proportionately/equally into all the loan accounts in O.D. Account Nos.471 to 479, 500 and 501. 3. The respondent No.4 is a Society registered under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the APCS Act’), engaged in the business of banking, by obtaining license under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The petitioner No.1, which is a Proprietary concern by name M/s.Rajashree and Company along with 10 other proprietary concerns, who include the petitioners in W.P.No.26258 of 2009, availed a loan to the tune of Rs.20.02 Crores from the 4th respondent-Bank. Initially, the loans obtained by the petitioners were term loans, but the same were converted into O.D accounts in the year 2000-2001 vide O.D. Accounts bearing Nos.471 to 479, 500 and 501. Respondents 12 to 14 herein have mortgaged their property admeasuring 7528 sq. yards, situated at Begumpet village of Balanagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. The said property was offered as security for the loans obtained by the petitioners and other proprietary concerns and the respondents 12 to 14 have not divided the interest in the property, which was mortgaged to the 4th respondent-Bank. To secure the loan, respondents 12 to 14 have executed all necessary documents, including the demand promissory note and memorandum of deposit of title deeds in favour of the Bank. 4. To secure the loan, respondents 12 to 14 have executed all necessary documents, including the demand promissory note and memorandum of deposit of title deeds in favour of the Bank. 4. The writ petitioners and other borrowers and the mortgagers, whose property was given as security for the loans obtained by the petitioners and others, committed default in repayment of loans as agreed by them, as such, the 4th respondent-Bank has taken steps for recovery of loans, by initiating arbitration proceedings. Ultimately, there was an Award in favour of the 4th respondent-Bank to recover the loan amounts from the borrowers, and the respondents 12 to 14 herein, who have created equitable mortgage of their property to secure the loans obtained by the petitioners and others. 5. In view of the liquidity problems suffered by the 4th respondent-Bank, the Reserve Bank of India issued directions under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, with effect from 07.03.2003, and subsequently, the Reserve Bank of India also reviewed the financial position of the Bank in a meeting held on 04.04.2005 and felt that there is a possibility of reconstruction of the Bank, provided the Bank achieves the following goals: (i) recover atleast Rs.20 Crores from sale of one of the properties mortgaged to the Bank, situated on Begumpet road; (ii)increase share capital of the Bank by Rs.12 Crores by conversion of deposits; (iii) close two more branches; and (iv) further reduce the expenditure on overheads. The Person Incharge Committee of the 4th respondent-Bank has taken a decision on 7th December 2005, to permit the sale of mortgaged property, which is given as security in connection with the loans obtained by the petitioners and other proprietary concerns and the same was agreeable for respondents 12 to 14 herein. After the 4th respondent-Bank secured Award under Arbitration proceedings to recover the loan amounts with interest against the principal borrowers and the mortgagers, attempts were made in 2003 to put the mortgaged property for sale through public auction in execution proceedings, but the 4th respondent-Bank was not successful since the consideration was substantially low and there were many claim petitions, which stood in the way of executing the award. Further attempts were made to put the mortgaged property for auction during the years 2004 and 2005, when a three-member-committee was appointed to manage the affairs of the Bank, headed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District as Chairman. Even in the said attempts, the 4th respondent-Bank could not get the good price for the land. In the auctions held in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, the highest offers were at Rs.11,600/-, 14,500/- and 25,000/- per sq. yard, respectively. At that stage, the respondent No.5 herein, a Private Limited Company, has offered to purchase the property at the rate of Rs.30,500/-per sq. yard. As the Person Incharge Committee of the 4th respondent-Bank felt that the said rate is in conformity with the market trends, to achieve the goal to recover atleast Rs.20 Crores from the sale of property as directed by the Reserve Bank of India, in the meeting held on 7th December, 2005, took a decision to permit the sale of mortgaged property, as per the rate proposed by the 5th respondent herein. A letter was addressed in this regard, to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, and accordingly, the proposal of the Bank was also forwarded to the Government. In the proposals submitted from the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the Government, inter alia, it is stated that in the auctions held during the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, the highest offers were at Rs.11,600/-, 14,500/- and 25,000/-per sq. yard respectively, and the rate offered at Rs.30,500/- is in conformity with the market trends, and in view of the conditions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India, the Person Incharge Committee of the Bank resolved to permit the mortgagers to sell the property to the buyers of their choice. The Government, having considered the proposals emanated from the Bank, which were forwarded by the Commissioner for Cooperation to the 1st respondent, agreed for the proposals for sale of property to respondent No.5, in the interest of the Bank and depositors, and issued Memo No.19201/Coop.iii(1)/2005-1, to that effect on 18.04.2006. Consequently, the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings, dt.28.04.2006, in Rc.No.38629/2000 UBV, addressed to the 4th respondent-Bank, asking to take further action for sale of property by taking an undertaking from the purchasers for remitting the amount of sale proceeds directly to the Bank. Consequently, the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings, dt.28.04.2006, in Rc.No.38629/2000 UBV, addressed to the 4th respondent-Bank, asking to take further action for sale of property by taking an undertaking from the purchasers for remitting the amount of sale proceeds directly to the Bank. Further, it was stated in the proceedings that the documents of the property should be released only after realizing the full sale consideration. Subsequently, the said undivided property belonged to respondents 12 to 14, was sold in bits in favour of respondents 5 to 11 on 11.05.2006 for a total consideration of Rs.23,12,24,584/-. On receipt of such amount, it was adjusted by the Bank in the O.D. loan account bearing No.478, granted in favour of M/s.Maheswari Enterprises and O.D. account No.479, granted in favour of M/s.Bhargavi Enterprises and closed the said accounts and also credited towards principal amount into the O.D. loan account Nos.471 to 477. 6. This writ petition is filed on 25th of March 2009 by the proprietor of M/s.Rajashree and Company, which is the 1st petitioner herein, along with another, questioning the orders issued by the Government and the consequential orders issued by the 2nd respondent and also questioning the sale of mortgaged property in favour of respondents 5 to 11. As averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that as per the provisions under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder, the mortgaged immovable property shall be sold only in public auction to the highest bidder. It is alleged that the 1st respondent has no authority or jurisdiction for issuing the impugned Memo permitting the 4th respondent-Bank to allow the owners/mortgagers to sell the property, either to respondent No.5 or others, deviating from the mandatory provisions contemplated under Rule 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Society Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the APCS Rules’). It is alleged that the 1st respondent has no authority or jurisdiction for issuing the impugned Memo permitting the 4th respondent-Bank to allow the owners/mortgagers to sell the property, either to respondent No.5 or others, deviating from the mandatory provisions contemplated under Rule 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Society Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the APCS Rules’). It is also the case of the petitioners that the only power conferred on the Government is under Section 131 of the APCS Act, which empowers the Government to issue in general or particular matters under the Act, any direction in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in the interest of the Cooperative movement in the State, as it may consider necessary to the Registrar, but such orders issued by the Government are without any authority of law, and in any event, the 1st respondent has erred in not affording opportunity to the petitioners, who are affected by such sales. It is alleged that the principal borrowers availed loans by creating mortgage of valuable property as security under the bonafide impression that the mortgaged properties are very much sufficient for recovery of loans in the event of default on the part of the principal borrowers. It is stated that if the mortgaged properties are sold for lesser value, by adopting the procedure contrary to the Rules framed under the APCS Act, the principal borrowers as well as the guarantors will be put to irreparable harm and hardship. Alleging that the principal borrowers and guarantors in the above said loans were not given any notices before issuing the impugned memo by the 1st respondent, the petitioners seek invalidation of the sales affected in favour of respondents 5 to 11. It is also the case of the petitioners that adjusting the entire amount only to two accounts in O.D. account Nos.478 and 479 without obtaining any consent from the other loanees/principal borrowers and guarantors, is also illegal. 7. The 4th respondent-Bank has filed counter affidavit with the following averments. It is stated that the petitioners and 10 other proprietary concerns have availed the loan of Rs.20.02 Crores and respondents 12 to 14 have mortgaged their property admeasuring 7528 sq. yards at Begumpet village in Balanagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. The said mortgaged property is not divided and each have undivided interest. It is stated that the petitioners and 10 other proprietary concerns have availed the loan of Rs.20.02 Crores and respondents 12 to 14 have mortgaged their property admeasuring 7528 sq. yards at Begumpet village in Balanagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. The said mortgaged property is not divided and each have undivided interest. Accordingly, the guarantors executed all necessary documents including the demand promissory note and memorandum of deposit of title deeds. The writ petitioners and other borrowers and guarantors committed default, as such, the Bank had initiated recovery proceedings under APCS Act, and secured Awards in the loan accounts and in terms of the Award, the guarantors and principal borrowers are jointly and severally responsible to discharge the loan amounts. It is stated that during the arbitration proceedings, summons were issued to all the principal borrowers and parties, who were involved in the loan transactions, including the writ petitioners, however, the writ petitioners never appeared before the arbitrator in recovery proceedings and never responded to the notices, hence, they were set exparte and awards were passed in respect of all the 11 loan accounts. It is also stated that aggrieved by the awards, the guarantors and certain individuals have filed appeals in CTA.Nos.92 of 2003 to 100/2003 and when the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal has modified the awards, they have questioned the same before this Court. It is stated that during the pendency of appeals before the Cooperative Tribunal, the Bank made many attempts to put the mortgaged property to sale through public auction in execution proceedings, but the 4th respondent-Bank was not successful since the considerations offered in auctions were substantially low, as such, in view of the proposals of the mortgagers and the 5th respondent herein, the bank recommended for sale of property in favour of respondent No.5 at the rate of Rs.30,500/- per sq. yard, which is in conformity with the market rate. It is further stated that in view of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the Person Incharge Committee of the Bank permitted sale of property to the prospective buyers for fetching good price for the property. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent forwarded proceedings to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent-Government, in turn, have agreed for the proposals and permitted sale of property by the mortgagers to the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent forwarded proceedings to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent-Government, in turn, have agreed for the proposals and permitted sale of property by the mortgagers to the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the property was disposed of for Rs.23,12,24,584/-and the respondents 12 to 14, who are the owners and mortgagers of the property, have executed registered sale deeds in favour of respondents 5 to 11. It is further stated that the 4th respondent-Bank received the sale consideration directly from the purchasers and the sale consideration was adjusted in the loan accounts at the request of respondents 12 to 14. The remaining amounts, after the said adjustments, were unsecured and the 4th respondent issued notices in terms of the arbitration award when the borrowers, guarantors and mortgagers were demanded for payment of loan dues. While denying the allegation of the petitioners that there is a collusion with the mortgagers i.e. respondents 12 to 14 in adjusting the entire amount only for two accounts i.e. O.D. account Nos.478 and 479 and it is stated that respondents 12 to 14 directly approached the purchasers and sold the property in favour of respondent No.5 and registered the property. While pleading that the 4th respondent-Bank has taken all precautions and acted in accordance with law, it is stated that the Bank is at liberty to do so. It is further stated that since respondents 12 to 14 are equally, jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the loan amounts being mortgagers and guarantors, their consent itself is a clear proof that they are personally liable. It is further stated that the writ petitioners being the borrowers, cannot question the way of adjustment of sale proceeds and further stating that the writ petition itself is filed after three years of sale, pleaded for its dismissal on merits as well as on the ground of guilty of laches. 8. A separate counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, sworn in by Sri D.R.Garg, Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad, with the following averments. It is stated that though the 1st respondent-Government issued the Memo on 18.04.2006, and consequential proceedings were issued by the 2nd respondent in the same year, the writ petition was filed after lapse of 3 years. It is stated that though the 1st respondent-Government issued the Memo on 18.04.2006, and consequential proceedings were issued by the 2nd respondent in the same year, the writ petition was filed after lapse of 3 years. It is pleaded that the petitioners have kept quite for all these years, as such, the writ petition is hit by severe laches and it is to be dismissed on this ground alone. In the counter, it is stated that the petitioners have not divulged in the writ petition as to in what way their rights are affected and the petitioner No.2 has not furnished any particulars to maintain the writ petition. While giving the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India for reconstruction of the Bank and the conditions imposed by it, it is stated that in view of the decision of the Person Incharge Committee to permit the sale of mortgaged property by the mortgagers, proposals were sent to the Government and keeping in view the reconstruction scheme of the Bank, the 1st respondent-Government approved the proposals to sell the property. While referring to the arbitration proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent-Bank, it is stated that summons were issued to all the principal borrowers and the parties who were involved in the loan transactions, including the respondent No.1, however, they did not appear before the arbitrator in the ARC proceedings and having failed to avail the opportunity, the petitioners cannot contend contra now. It is further pleaded that having committed default in payments and having failed to appear before the arbitrator inspite of issuance of summons, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the 1st respondent has issued the impugned memo without notice to them. It is stated that there is no need to give any notice before issuing the memo and the said memo issued by the Government is in the interest of depositors and to revive the Bank as per the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In the counter, while referring to the steps taken by the Bank for sale of the mortgaged property in execution of the award during the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, it is stated that the petitioners, who are defaulters, cannot have any objection to the action taken by the respondents. In the counter, while referring to the steps taken by the Bank for sale of the mortgaged property in execution of the award during the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, it is stated that the petitioners, who are defaulters, cannot have any objection to the action taken by the respondents. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not a bonafide litigation and the only aim and intention of the petitioners appears to be to protract the litigation for oblique motives. Pleading that the writ petition is devoid of merit, sought for its dismissal. 9. There is another counter affidavit filed by respondents 5, 7 and 11, wherein, it is stated that respondents 7 and 11 Companies are merged with respondent No.5 and the name of the 5th respondent-Company has been changed to ‘GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited’, and consequent upon merger, a fresh certificate of incorporation was issued by the Registrar of Companies on 21.03.2007. In the counter, it is stated that the writ petition is filed belatedly on 20th March 2009, challenging the memo issued by the 1st respondent-Government, dated 18.04.2006, and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 28.04.2006, and as no single reason is given by the petitioners to explain the inordinate delay of about 3 years, pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches. It is stated that they are the owners of property comprising totally 7049 sq. yards, which was purchased from respondents 12 to 15 with the prior consent of the 4th respondent-Bank, to which, the property was mortgaged for the loans advanced by it. It is stated that the writ petitioners also claim to be the borrowers from the very same bank with O.D Account No.500, but the petitioners are neither owners of the said property nor have any right, title or interest thereon. The 2nd petitioner does not mention as to how and in what manner he is concerned with the 4th respondent-Bank and the subject property. It is stated that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the sale of property, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. The 2nd petitioner does not mention as to how and in what manner he is concerned with the 4th respondent-Bank and the subject property. It is stated that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the sale of property, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that they are the bonafide purchasers of property for valuable consideration and the petitioners have oblique motive and the apparent grievance of the petitioners appears to be only against the 4th respondent-Bank and the present belated challenge to the memo issued by the Government is merely a ruse for filing the writ petition. Petitioners, being defaulters having not repaid the loans obtained from the 4th respondent-Bank, are not entitled for any equitable relief. It is stated that no writ petition can be maintained against them, as the petitioners do not have any cause of action against them. It is stated that if the petitioners got any grievance against the 4th respondent-Bank, they have to work out their remedies in appropriate forum. It is stated that as the petitioners failed to raise any objections since 2006, they are not entitled to challenge the sales affected in favour of respondents 5 to 11, and that too, after the entire sale consideration is used by the Bank to come out of a chaotic situation and to pay the thousands of depositors. It is stated that respondents 5 to 11 have purchased the property for a valuable consideration of Rs.23,12,24,584/- and paid directly to the 4th respondent-Bank. They have paid sale consideration for the said property at the rate of Rs.32,800/-per sq. yard, and also incurred substantial expenditure on stamp duty and registration charges for execution of sale deeds and thus, the total cost of acquisition of property has come to Rs.24,34,81,988/-. It is stated that respondent No.5 has taken on lease, the entire property from respondents 6 to 11 and is paying lease rents and respondent No.5 also incurred substantial expenditure for development of the subject property towards Architect fee, Consultant fee, preparation of architectural plans, statutory fees and charges, approvals and permissions, excavation works, civil works like construction of compound wall, security charges apart from administrative expenses, etc. It is stated that they have paid an amount of Rs.77.68 lakhs towards the consultancy, architectural and development charges, Rs.16.46 lakhs towards various fees and statutory charges, Rs.23.63 lakhs for administrative and security charges, and Rs.24.75 lakhs for civil works and excavation at the site till date. While pleading that there is no illegality or irregularity in the sales affected in favour of respondents 5 to 11, it is stated that the 1st respondent-Government permitted sale in favour of respondents 5 to 11 after several attempts to sell the property in public auction failed to yield any positive result. It is stated that respondents 5 to 11 being the purchasers of property, are entitled to develop the said property and have applied to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to grant permission for constructing a hotel/commercial building in the premises and the Corporation has issued proceedings, dated 01.06.2009, asking the respondent No.5 to pay more than Rs.8.24 Crores for various fees and charges for final approval. It is stated that though the respondents are ready to commence construction, but in view of the orders passed by this Court, they are prevented from proceeding with the development of property. With the above said pleadings, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. A separate counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 12 to 14 with the following averments. It is stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, as the petitioners are questioning the memo, dated 18.04.2006, issued by the State Government, by filing the writ petition in March 2009. It is stated that the 4th respondent-Bank has sold the property in question to respondents 5 to 11, who have purchased the same and are in its possession for all these years and the money realized from the said sale proceeds, has been appropriated by the 4th respondent-Bank in accordance with law and the writ petitioners have not shown any justification to maintain this writ petition after the lapse of almost three years. It is stated that pursuant to the said memo issued by the Government, third parties’ rights had come into operation as the property had already been sold, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that pursuant to the said memo issued by the Government, third parties’ rights had come into operation as the property had already been sold, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that when the 4th respondent-Bank had advanced certain loans to some of its debtors and when some money was realized out of the sale proceeds from the mortgaged property, it is the prerogative of the Bank to appropriate sale proceeds to the existing loan accounts of its debtors. Referring to the memo of the Government, dated 18.04.2006, issued for sale of the mortgaged property, it is stated that the said memo is issued in public interest and also in the interest of the Bank. It is stated that the said memo itself is self-explanatory, giving the circumstances under which the Government had permitted to sell the property at the market price. It is stated that in respect of M/s.Maheswari Enterprises and M/s.Bhargavi Enterprises, M/s.Sairam Carriers had mortgaged the immovable property to the loans availed by the said Enterprises. To the extent of their liability and to the extent of their proportionate share in the said property, the amount realized by selling the said mortgaged property was appropriated to the loan accounts of the said two enterprises, as such, it is not open for the petitioners to make any grievance about it. It is stated that at any rate, it is the right of the creditor to appropriate the amounts realized by it. Counter further states that in respect of loan accounts other than the loans availed by M/s.Maheswari Enterprises and M/s.Bhargavi Enterprises, M/s.Sairam Carriers, the respondent No.12 herein, is in no way concerned, as such, there is no illegality in adjusting the amounts to the said two accounts from the sale proceeds of the property. While denying the allegation of the petitioners that the mortgaged property should be sold in public auction, it is stated that the 4th respondent-Bank was under liquidation and several depositors, whose interests are at stake, were agitating for their amounts, and at that stage, the property mortgaged to the Bank could not be sold. While denying the allegation of the petitioners that the mortgaged property should be sold in public auction, it is stated that the 4th respondent-Bank was under liquidation and several depositors, whose interests are at stake, were agitating for their amounts, and at that stage, the property mortgaged to the Bank could not be sold. It is stated that even in respect of the property in question, on more than three occasions, when the property was proposed to be sold in public auction, there were no buyers. It is stated that keeping all these aspects in mind and in the public interest and also in the interest of depositors, the 1st respondent-Government has issued the impugned memo and the whole transaction is transparent and is not vitiated from any angle. It is stated that the Government’s power under Section 131 of the APCS Act, is wide and the impugned memo issued is traceable to such power. While referring to Rule 52 of the APCS Rules, it is stated that the same prescribe the procedure to be followed in execution of decrees, decisions or orders and it is stated that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the method adopted by the Government. While denying the allegation of collusion by the Bank with M/s.Maheswari Enterprises and M/s.Bhargavi Enterprises, it is stated that as the property of respondent No.12 was mortgaged only to these loan transactions, the money realized out of the sale of said mortgaged property was appropriated to those two loan accounts. While pleading that the steps taken by the 4th respondent-Bank are in accordance with law, respondents 12 to 14 pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Separate reply affidavits are filed by the petitioners, to the counters filed by the respondents. in the reply affidavit to the counter filed by the 4th respondent-Bank, while referring to the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, it is stated that the Tribunal has held that respondents 12 to 14 are mortgagers in respect of 7 loans and it is further stated that if the principal borrowers fail to repay the loan amount, the 4th respondent-Bank is at liberty to proceed against the mortgaged property of respondents 12 to 14. In the reply, the petitioners have denied the averments made in the counter that they are the close associates of respondents 12 to 14 and reiterated their stand that the 4th respondent-Bank cannot adjust the sale proceeds only to two loan accounts. 12. In the reply affidavit filed to the counter of respondents 5, 7 and 11, the petitioners have disputed the authority of respondent No.5 to file counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 7 and 11. It is stated that as no notice was given to the petitioners by the Government before issuing the Memo, dated 18.04.2006 or before executing the sale deeds, and as the writ petition was filed immediately after coming to know of the impugned action of respondents, there is no delay or laches on their part. With reference to the allegation of the expenditure incurred by the 5th respondent, it is stated that respondents 5 to 11 might have incurred expenditure at their own risk and the same is immaterial with regard to the adjudication of the lis involved in the present writ petitions. It is pleaded that respondents 5 to 11 have colluded with the other respondents to bag the valuable property at cheaper and meagre price compared to the real market value. 13. In the reply affidavit filed against the counter of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that petitioner No.1 is the principal borrower under O.D. Account No.500 with the 4th respondent-Bank, being a proprietor of M/s.Rajashree and Company and the property in dispute is also mortgaged in favour of the 4th respondent-Bank for the said loan account and that the principal borrowers and all the 11 account holders have availed loans by creating mortgage of valuable immovable property under the impression that in case they fail to pay the loan, same can be recovered by the Bank by putting the valuable immovable property for sale in public auction, as such, the sale affected through the modes other than the public auction, is illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner in the writ petition is the principal borrower under O.D. Account No.476 with the 4th respondent-Bank, in respect of which also, the said property is mortgaged along with 10 loan accounts, and thus, they are very much affected by the impugned sales and also by the orders issued by the Government and the 2nd respondent. It is further pleaded in the reply affidavit that merely because the Reserve Bank of India has imposed restriction for revival of the Bank, it does not empower the respondents to deviate from the mandatory procedure for executing the awards obtained by it under the APCS Act. It is also stated that neither the arbitrator who passed the award under Section 62 of the APCS Act, nor the Tribunal, which is the appellate authority, have authorized the respondents to deviate from the Statutory procedure contemplated under the Act. It is stated that having obtained the Award under Section 62 of the Act, the 4th respondent-Bank and the authorities have Statutory obligation to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. While pleading that the respondent authorities cannot pick and choose some parties and properties as per their whims and fancies, the petitioners have denied the allegation made in the counter that the writ petition is not a bonafide one and is filed only to protract the litigation for oblique motives. 14. In the reply filed against the counter filed on behalf of respondents 12 to 14, it is stated that the mortgage deed executed by all the owners of the mortgaged property i.e. respondents 12 to 15 in favour of the 4th respondent-Bank would show that respondents 12 to 15 have mortgaged the property in question in respect of all the O.D. loan accounts. A reference is also made to the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal in C.T.A.Nos.92 of 2003 to 100 of 2003, and it is stated that the Tribunal has held that in case, the principal borrowers fail to repay the loan amounts, the 4th respondent-Bank is at liberty to proceed against the mortgaged property of respondents 12 to 14. While reiterating their stand that the property, which was mortgaged, is in respect of all the 11 loan accounts, they have denied the allegation that the 4th respondent-Bank was under liquidation. 15. While reiterating their stand that the property, which was mortgaged, is in respect of all the 11 loan accounts, they have denied the allegation that the 4th respondent-Bank was under liquidation. 15. Heard Sri E.Manoher, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri A.Anand Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Bank, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5, 7 and 11, Sri S.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 12, 13 and 14, Sri C.V.Narasimham, learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 and 10 and Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.15. 16. Sri E.Manoher, appearing for petitioners, has referred to the various allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the averments made by the respondents in their counter affidavit and further referred to the reply affidavits filed by the petitioners, and contended that as much as the petitioners are the principal borrowers under O.D. accounts with the 4th respondent-Bank, the 1st and 2nd respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to permit the sale of mortgaged property as otherwise than the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 52 of the APCS Rules. The learned Senior Counsel relies on Rule 52(11)(f) of the APCS Rules and contended that the sale of mortgaged immovable property shall be only by way of public auction, so that highest price will fetch, but there is no power conferred on the respondents for sale of property on the proposals made by the unofficial respondents. The learned counsel would contend that as much as the 4th respondent-Bank has already obtained award in arbitration proceedings under Section 62 of the APCS Act, the only option left to the Bank is to execute the award against the principal borrowers and guarantors by sale of properties, which are given by way of security against the loans obtained by the petitioners, by putting such properties to auction, as provided under Rule 52(11)(f) of the Rules. It is submitted that as the 4th respondent-Bank has permitted for sale of property as otherwise than auction as mandated in Rule 52 of the Rules, the petitioners are the affected parties. It is submitted that as the 4th respondent-Bank has permitted for sale of property as otherwise than auction as mandated in Rule 52 of the Rules, the petitioners are the affected parties. It is submitted that they have obtained loans in view of mortgage of property by respondents 12 to 14, with the hope that even in the event of default in repayment of loans, if the property is sold in auction, they would get sufficient amount to clear the entire loan amounts, which are due to be paid by them, with interest, and as such, the sales affected in favour of respondents 5 to 11 are illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that there is no power conferred on the 1st respondent-Government for issuing the impugned memo, dated 18.04.2006, and the consequential orders issued by the 2nd respondent-Registrar of Cooperative Societies, are without any authority of law. Even it is submitted by the learned counsel that the power under Section 131 of the APCS Act will not empower respondents 1 and 2 to issue such proceedings to individual Societies, as such, the impugned proceedings issued and the consequential steps taken, permitting the sale of property in favour of respondents 5 to 11, are illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the 1st respondent-Government has not given any opportunity to the petitioners before issuing the impugned proceedings, and even the sales affected in favour of respondents 5 to 11 are not in tune with the instructions issued by the Government in the proceedings, dated 18.04.2006. In support of his argument that the procedure under Rule 52 of APCS Rules for sale of mortgaged properties is mandatory, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Trading Company Vs. M.Krishna ( 2010 (4) ALT 97 (D.B)). The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of A.P.State Co-operative Societies Secretaries and Employees Union Vs. Government of A.P. (2002 (3) ALT 728 (D.B)), in support of his argument that there is no power to the Government to issue any individual directions to the Societies, in exercise of power under Section 131 of the APCS Act. Government of A.P. (2002 (3) ALT 728 (D.B)), in support of his argument that there is no power to the Government to issue any individual directions to the Societies, in exercise of power under Section 131 of the APCS Act. Further reference is made to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vummalaneni Saroja Vs. Tenali Municipality ( 2000 (6) ALT 354 ), in support of his argument that the mortgaged property is to be sold only by way of public auction, but not on any private negotiations with third parties. 17. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Bank Sri A.Anand Rao, and also Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the purchasers of property, that the writ petition itself is to be dismissed in view of the abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. It is submitted that though the orders were issued by the Government on 18.04.2006 and the consequential orders on 28.04.2006 and sales were affected by executing the registered sale deeds by the mortgagers in favour of the purchasers on 11.05.2006, no steps have been taken by the petitioners for a period of about 3 years and without explaining the inordinate delay and laches on their part, they approached this Court. It is further submitted that when counter affidavit is filed pointing out the laches in filing the writ petition, to cover up such laches, the 2nd writ petition is filed in W.P.No.26258 of 2009 by the other account holders. The learned counsel would contend that as much as the owners of the property, who have mortgaged the property, have no objection for sale of such property, it is not open for the petitioners to question the same at this point of time. The learned counsel would contend that as much as the sales were not in execution proceedings, the procedure contemplated under Rule 52 of the APCS Rules has no application for the sales affected in the present cases. The learned counsel would contend that as much as the sales were not in execution proceedings, the procedure contemplated under Rule 52 of the APCS Rules has no application for the sales affected in the present cases. In these cases, it is to be noted that the mortgagers themselves, who are the owners of the property, and who have created equitable mortgage to secure the loans granted by the 4th respondent-Bank, have proposed for sale of such property in favour of respondents 5 to 11, as such, the petitioners, who are the principal borrowers and who have obtained huge loan amounts from the 4th respondent-Bank and defaulted and suffered the arbitration award, cannot question the sale of such property. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Person Incharge Committee, which was appointed to manage the affairs of the 4th respondent-Bank, which is a Society registered under the APCS Act, has decided to permit the sale of mortgaged property in view of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India to mobilize an amount of Rs.20 Crores for reconstruction of the Bank. It is submitted that as the earlier attempts for sale of property in execution of the award, by putting the property to public auction were failed and as the property could not be sold as there were no bids offering the market price, and as the offer made by the 5th respondent was in tune with the market trend, the Person Incharge Committee has decided to permit for sale of property, and in turn, addressed to the 2nd respondent-Registrar, who submitted proposals to the Government, which resulted in issuance of the proceedings, dated 18.04.2006 and the further consequential proceedings, dated 28.04.2006. It is submitted that as there is joint and several liability for the amount covered by the arbitration award, to discharge the said liability, the mortgagers of property themselves have agreed for sale of such property in favour of respondents 5 to 11, as such, the petitioners cannot have any say in the matter. It is submitted that by such sales, the rights of the petitioners are not affected and a belated attempt is being made with oblique motives, to deprive the bonafide purchasers, of the property purchased by them. It is submitted that by such sales, the rights of the petitioners are not affected and a belated attempt is being made with oblique motives, to deprive the bonafide purchasers, of the property purchased by them. It is also submitted that the petitioners have not responded to the notices issued in arbitration proceedings, which resulted in passing of award against them, as such, the petitioners cannot complain on the ground that they are not issued with any notices. By issuing the impugned memos by the Government and the 2nd respondent, no rights of petitioners are affected, as such, there is no illegality in the sales affected in favour of respondents 5 to 11. It is further submitted that as the property mortgaged by respondents 12 to 15 was undivided, they sold such undivided shares by executing various registered sale deeds in favour of purchasers. It is further submitted that by issuing the proceedings, dated 18.04.2006, and the consequential proceedings, dated 28.04.2006, the 1st respondent-Bank has not committed any illegality, and as the bank was under liquidation and as it was being managed by the Person Incharge Committee headed by the official Chairman, such permissions were granted to the Bank. It is also pleaded that when the sale proceeds were realized, it is for the Bank to adjust the same against any of the loan accounts and it is not for the petitioners to plead for adjustment of amount against any particular account. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra in the case of Kuchipudi Balakrishnayya Vs. Chamarti Mallikarjuna Rao (1955 (1) AnWR 699 (AP)), in support of his argument that in view of the explanation to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the petitioners shall be deemed to have notice of the instruments from the date of registration, as such, it is not open for them to plead that they are not aware of such registration. 18. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 12 to 14, would contend that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the impugned orders and the sale deeds executed by respondents 12 to 14. 18. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 12 to 14, would contend that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the impugned orders and the sale deeds executed by respondents 12 to 14. It is further submitted that there is also unexplained delay and laches on the part of petitioners in approaching this Court and as much as the sales were affected in 2006 and developments are made by the purchasers, petitioners cannot seek any relief at this point of time in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel, referring to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, stated that in view of the provisions under Sections 59 and 60 of the said Act, it is the discretion of the creditor to adjust the amount towards any lawful debt, which is actually due and payable to the Bank from the debtor, and as such, it is not open for the petitioners to question the adjustment made against two accounts. Further, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal ( AIR 1987 SC 251 ), in support of his argument that in view of the abnormal delay and laches and the developments made by the purchasers, petitioners are disentitled to claim any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declined to set aside the contract awarded to respondent No.4 in the said Civil Appeal on the ground that the said appeal was filed five months after the acceptance of the tender of respondent No.4, during which period, he has altered his position. The learned counsel requests to apply the said ratio to the present case, on the ground that there was an unexplained and abnormal delay of 3 years in this case, from the date of sale of property in favour of his clients. 19. The learned counsel requests to apply the said ratio to the present case, on the ground that there was an unexplained and abnormal delay of 3 years in this case, from the date of sale of property in favour of his clients. 19. With reference to the above said arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the issues, which arise for consideration are; whether the sale of immovable property in favour of respondents 5 to 11, basing on the orders issued by the Government, dated 18.04.2006, and the consequential orders, dated 28.04.2006, passed by the 2nd respondent, is in violation of the provisions contained under Rule 52 of APCS Rules; whether there is delay and laches on the part of petitioners in approaching this Court, which disentitle them to the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution; and further, whether the 4th respondent-Bank is justified in adjusting the amount in full in respect of two accounts and principal amounts in respect of the accounts of the other borrowers. 20. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners in this petition and 10 others are the principal borrowers in the O.D loan accounts, from the 4th respondent-Bank, which is a Society registered under the APCS Act. Respondents 12 to 14, who are undisputedly the owners of the property, have mortgaged the property by creating equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank to secure the loans obtained by the petitioners and others. When the petitioners and other principal borrowers failed to repay the loan amounts, the 4th respondent-Bank has initiated recovery proceedings by raising dispute under Section 61 of the APCS Act, and ultimately, secured an award under Section 62 of the Act, to recover the loan amounts with interest, against the principal borrowers and the mortgagers whose properties were mortgaged. It is also not disputed that in execution of the award obtained by the 4th respondent-Bank, attempts were made during the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 by putting the property to auction, in which, it is stated that the rates offered were at Rs.11,600/-, 14,500/- and 25,000/- per sq. yard, respectively. It is also not disputed that in execution of the award obtained by the 4th respondent-Bank, attempts were made during the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 by putting the property to auction, in which, it is stated that the rates offered were at Rs.11,600/-, 14,500/- and 25,000/- per sq. yard, respectively. In that view of the matter, and in view of the liquidity problem suffered by the Bank, directions were issued by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, for restructure and revival of the bank, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was to recover an amount of Rs.20 Crores by selling any of the properties mortgaged to the Bank. In that process, when there were no bids offering satisfactory price in execution of the award obtained by the 4th respondent-Bank, the 5th respondent came forward to purchase the property from the mortgagers by offering the rate at Rs.30,500/-per sq. yard. In that context, and further, in view of the conditions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India, and having satisfied that the price offered by respondent No.5 was more than the prices offered in the auction proceedings in execution of the award obtained by the 4th respondent-Bank, the Person Incharge Committee has agreed in principle to permit such sales by the mortgagers. In that context, as the Bank was under liquidation and in view of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India, and further, having regard to the fact that there was no elected Managing Committee at that point of time and the Person Incharge Committee was headed by the official Person Incharge, proposals were sent to the 2nd respondent, who in turn, forwarded the same to the 1st respondent-Government. In view of the impugned orders issued by the Government approving the said proposals, sales were affected for transfer of mortgaged property in favour of the purchasers i.e. respondents 5 to 11 and the registered sale deeds were executed by the mortgagers in favour of the purchasers on 11.05.2006. In view of the impugned orders issued by the Government approving the said proposals, sales were affected for transfer of mortgaged property in favour of the purchasers i.e. respondents 5 to 11 and the registered sale deeds were executed by the mortgagers in favour of the purchasers on 11.05.2006. Although the 4th respondent-Bank has obtained an Award under Section 62 of the APCS Act, the process adopted for sale of property of mortgagers in favour of respondents 5 to 11, is not in the process of execution of the award or decree, so as to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Sri E.Manoher that the orders issued by the Government and the sales affected in favour of respondents 5 to 11 is in contravention of Rule 52 of the APCS Rules, 1964. It is clear from the record that the proposals emanated pursuant to the decision taken by the Person Incharge Committee to permit the mortgagers for sale of property for recovery of the loans granted by the Bank in favour of the petitioners and other proprietary concerns, who borrowed huge amounts. In that process, as the management of the Bank was in the hands of the Person Incharge Committee, it has taken approvals from the Commissioner of Cooperation. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, in turn, also obtained approval from the Government. The process, which is adopted for the purpose of affecting the sales, cannot be equated to that of an execution of the decree under Rule 52 of the APCS Rules, 1964. There was no application by the 4th respondent-Bank before the Registrar, for execution of the award under Rule 52 of the said Rules. The contention of the learned senior counsel for petitioners that the sale shall be through public auction to the highest bidder as contemplated under Rule 52 (11)(f) of the APCS Rules, 1964, is confined to cases, where decree holder or the person in whose favour the award is passed, makes an application to the Registrar for execution of the decree or award. When the mortgagers who have executed equitable mortgage to secure the loan granted by the 4th respondent-Bank, are willing to transfer the property to discharge from the liability along with the principal borrowers, it is always open for the parties to sell the property as otherwise than the procedure contemplated under Rule 52 of the APCS Rules, 1964. When the mortgagers who have executed equitable mortgage to secure the loan granted by the 4th respondent-Bank, are willing to transfer the property to discharge from the liability along with the principal borrowers, it is always open for the parties to sell the property as otherwise than the procedure contemplated under Rule 52 of the APCS Rules, 1964. In any event, it is to be noted that when the mortgagers themselves, who are the exclusive owners of the property, have executed the registered sale deeds for transfer of property, which was mortgaged to the Bank, it is not for the petitioners, who have defaulted in repayment of loans, to question such sales, on the ground that the procedure under Rule 52 of APCS Rules, 1964 is not followed. Though the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam Trading Company (1 supra), the said judgment would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners. In the aforesaid case, a Division Bench of this Court, while examining the validity of the auction which was conducted in execution of the award obtained by the Bank, on the ground that there was no clear 30 days gap between the sale notice and the auction sale, has held that when the Rule provides 30 days gap, such a procedure is mandatory. But, coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is not a case of execution of the award under Rule 52 of APCS Rules, and in that view of the matter, this judgment would not render any assistance to the petitioners. As such, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the procedure adopted for sale of mortgaged property is in violation of Rule 52 of the APCS Rules, cannot be accepted. 21. Coming to the validity of the proceedings of the 1st respondent-Government, dated 08.04.2006, and the consequential proceedings, dated 28.04.2010, issued by the 2nd respondent, it is contended by the learned senior counsel for petitioners that there is no power vested with the Government to issue the impugned proceedings, approving the proposals for sale of mortgaged property. In support of his argument, the learned senior counsel has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of A.P. State Co-operative Soceities Secretaries and Employees Union (2 supra). In support of his argument, the learned senior counsel has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of A.P. State Co-operative Soceities Secretaries and Employees Union (2 supra). In the aforesaid case, while considering the directions issued by the Government vis-à-vis the provisions under Section 116-C of the APCS Act, a Division Bench of this Court held that the District Co-operative Central Bank, being a Society, is entitled to decide and fix the staffing pattern, pay scales and other allowances for itself. It is also held that there is no provision in the Act which would enable either the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, or for that matter, the Government to interfere in the internal management of the affairs of any Society which includes a Cooperative Central Bank, in order to direct it to fix its staffing pattern, pay scales and other allowances in any particular manner. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court, however, held that the power of the Government to issue such directions can be only in public interest and in the interest of Co-operative movement. In this case, it is to be noticed that the proposal for sale of mortgaged property is not pursuant to the directions issued by the Government, but in view of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the conditions imposed for restructuring the bank, the Person Incharge Committee of the Bank itself has decided to permit sale of mortgaged property, keeping in mind the prices fetched in execution of the award during the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. As the Person Incharge Committee, headed by its official Chairman, was managing the affairs of the 4th respondent-Bank at that point of time, it has sent the proposals to the Commissioner, who in turn, obtained approval from the Government and such proposals were approved, stating that the same is in the interest of the Bank and depositors. In reality, such a decision is taken by the Bank itself, as such, it cannot be said that only pursuant to the orders issued by the Government, sales were affected, transferring the mortgaged property in favour of purchasers. Strictly speaking, under the scheme of the APCS Act and the Rules made thereunder, there is no such requirement either statutorily or otherwise, permitting the sale of mortgaged property by the mortgagers. Strictly speaking, under the scheme of the APCS Act and the Rules made thereunder, there is no such requirement either statutorily or otherwise, permitting the sale of mortgaged property by the mortgagers. Merely because such approvals are obtained by the 4th respondent-Bank, such proceedings cannot invalidate the procedure adopted by the Bank and the consequential sale of mortgaged property by the 4th respondent-Bank, which is also otherwise valid. The impugned memo issued by the Government on 08.04.2006 and the consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent on 28.04.2006, cannot be termed as directions to the Society alone. In the aforesaid judgment (2 supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for petitioners, a Division Bench of this Court has observed that the Government has power to issue directions in public interest and in the interest of the Cooperative movement. Even assuming that the proceedings issued by the Government are traceable to the provisions under Section 131 of the APCS Act, it is to be noted that the said approvals are accorded by the Government not only in the interest of the Bank, but in the interest of depositors, whose money was locked in the Bank, on account of default by the petitioners and other borrowers from the Bank, who obtained huge amounts through their O.D. accounts and defaulted, it cannot be termed as merely a direction to the Society, but the approval accorded by the Government is not only in the interest of the Bank, but also in the interest of depositors and the Cooperative movement. In that view of the matter, the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for petitioners referred above, also would not render any assistance in support of his argument that the orders issued by the Government are without any authority of law and jurisdiction. Further reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the judgment of Vummalaneni Saroja (3 supra), wherein, sale of Municipal land by private negotiations was disapproved by this Court. But, in this case, it is to be noticed that the land which was sold, belonged to the private parties, who are respondents 12 to 15 and they have no grievance for sale of lands in favour of purchasers at the rates accepted by them. But, in this case, it is to be noticed that the land which was sold, belonged to the private parties, who are respondents 12 to 15 and they have no grievance for sale of lands in favour of purchasers at the rates accepted by them. In that view of the matter, as the said property is not a public property, the aforesaid judgment also is of no assistance to the case of petitioners, to plead that the only option for the Bank to sell the property is by way of public auction, but not otherwise. In this case, it is also to be noted that the price offered by the purchasers is better offer compared to the offers in the open auctions conducted during the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. In that view of the matter also, the said judgment would not render any assistance in support of the petitioners’ case. 22. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel Sri E.Manoher that the petitioners were not put on notice before issuing the impugned proceedings by the Government, but it is to be seen that when the mortgagers who have given security for the loans obtained by the petitioners are willing to part with the land by selling the property, only on the ground that the petitioners were not put on notice, the impugned proceedings cannot be invalidated. It is also to be noticed that by permitting the proposals for sale of property in favour of purchasers for better price than what was offered in the earlier public auctions conducted during 2003, 2004 and 2005 in execution of the award obtained by the Bank under Section 62 of the APCS Act, no right of the petitioners is affected so as to seek invalidation of the impugned proceedings on the ground that the sales were not preceded by any notice to them. So far as the liability of the petitioners is not altered by virtue of the sales, the liability of the petitioners will continue to the Bank, so long the debts are not discharged, and if the same are discharged by sale of mortgaged property, petitioners are liable to indemnify the sureties. Such implied promise is also eminent from the provisions under Sections 140 and 145 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Such implied promise is also eminent from the provisions under Sections 140 and 145 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. As much as this Court is of the view that no right of petitioners is affected by virtue of the impugned proceedings, and the petitioners, who are defaulters in discharge of loans obtained from the 4th respondent-Bank, and who did not even respond to the notices issued in arbitration proceedings, are not entitled to seek invalidation of the impugned proceedings and the sales affected, on the ground that they were not put on notice. 23. With regard to the plea of the respondents to reject the petitions on account of delay and laches on the part of petitioners in approaching this Court, it is to be noted that orders were issued by the Government as early as on 18.04.2006 and the consequential proceedings were issued by the 2nd respondent on 28.04.2006, and further, sales were affected by way of registered sale deeds in favour of respondents 5 to 11 on 11.05.2006. At the same time, it is also to be noticed from the arguments advanced by Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5, 7 and 11 that subsequent to purchase of property, further steps were taken by the purchasers to develop the property by spending huge amount towards Architect fee, Consultant fee, preparation of architectural plans, statutory fees and charges, approvals and permissions, excavation work, civil works on compound wall, security charges apart from administrative expenses, etc. It is also to be noticed that the writ petition in W.P.No.6415 of 2009 was filed on 25th of March 2009 and nearly 8 months thereafter, when counter affidavits were filed in the said writ petition, the other writ petition being W.P.No.26258 of 2009 is filed in similar lines by the other borrowers. Firstly, out of the total 11 principal borrowers who obtained the loans, only two principal borrowers have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6415 of 2009, questioning the proceedings of the Government and the consequential sales, and nearly after 8 months of filing the 1st writ petition, the other borrowers have come up with the 2nd writ petition in W.P.No.26258 of 2009. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the purchasers of property, that after purchase of property, they have spent further amounts towards civil works, construction of compound wall etc., it is very difficult to believe the plea of the petitioners that such sales were not to their knowledge. The judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel Sri D.Prakash Reddy in the case of Kuchipudi Balakrishnayya (4 supra) also supports the plea of delay and laches. In view of the aforesaid judgment and also in view of explanation (1) to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioners shall be deemed to have notice of the registered sale deeds, which are affected in favour of the purchasers. Otherwise also, it is difficult to believe the version that they have no knowledge, for the reason that inspite of service of summons in the arbitration proceedings, they have not responded to the same and they have suffered an exparte award under Section 62 of the APCS Act. In execution of such award, the property was notified for sale and auctions were conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Taking such facts into consideration, and in view of explanation (1) to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plea of petitioners that they did not have the knowledge of sales, cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that the purchasers have paid a total consideration amount of Rs.23,12,24,584/- pursuant to sales as early as on 11.05.2006 and it is also stated that further huge amounts were spent towards Architect fee, Consultant fee, preparation of architectural plans, statutory fees and charges for approvals and permissions, excavation work, civil works like construction of compound wall, security charges, apart from administrative expenses, etc. In that view of the matter, there is no valid explanation offered by the petitioners to explain the inordinate delay and laches on their part, in approaching this Court by filing this writ petition in the year 2009. There is yet another lapse on the part of petitioners in W.P.No.26258 of 2009, as much as there is a further delay of 8 months after filing of the 1st writ petition. There is yet another lapse on the part of petitioners in W.P.No.26258 of 2009, as much as there is a further delay of 8 months after filing of the 1st writ petition. It is well settled that the person who seeks relief from this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should be diligent and rush to this Court at the earliest possible time. On account of the abnormal delay and laches on the part of petitioners and huge moneys are deposited by the purchasers for purchasing the property from the mortgagers, in the absence of any explanatory delay on the part of petitioners in approaching this Court, the contention of the learned counsel for respondents is also to be upheld that the petitions are suffered by laches and delay, to reject the same on the said ground also. In this connection, reference can be made to the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S.Prasad in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh (5 supra), wherein, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court, in exercise of its discretion, does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and if such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. As this Court is of the view that there is abnormal and unexplained delay, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment also renders assistance in support of the case of respondents. Further reference is made by the learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S.Prasad to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty (6 supra) in support of his contention that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief on account of laches and delay. Further reference is made by the learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S.Prasad to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty (6 supra) in support of his contention that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief on account of laches and delay. In the aforesaid judgment, while dealing with a case relating to award of tenders for running restaurant and snack bars at Airport, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to annul the contract awarded to respondent No.4 on the ground that in the interregnum period of about 5 months between the date of acceptance of 4th respondent’s tender and the petitioner’s approaching the Court, the 4th respondent has altered his position and therefore, held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment also supports the case of respondents in this case. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, and in view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred above, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in view of the inordinate and unexplained delay and laches in approaching this Court, which is nearly 3 years after issuance of notification by the Government and the sales affected in favour of purchasers. 25. There is yet another plea raised by the petitioners that although there are 11 loan accounts, the sale proceeds were fully adjusted towards only two accounts and the principal amounts in other accounts. I have perused the copy of the memorandum of deposit of title deeds executed by respondents 12 to 15. From the perusal of the said memorandum, it is clear that the documents of title, mentioned in the schedule, were given as security for the repayment of a sum of Rs.20,02,00,000/-, which is covered by all the 11 loan accounts, by creating equitable mortgage. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the petitioners to question the adjustment of amounts in full only into two accounts. In view of the provisions under Sections 59 and 60 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is for the creditor to adjust the amounts on his discretion for any lawful debt actually due. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the petitioners to question the adjustment of amounts in full only into two accounts. In view of the provisions under Sections 59 and 60 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is for the creditor to adjust the amounts on his discretion for any lawful debt actually due. In view of the fact that the securities are given by creating equitable mortgage by respondents 12 to 15 for a total sum for the loans of 11 accounts, which are shown in the annexure of the memorandum of deposit of title deeds, it is the discretion of the Bank to adjust any amount to any account. In that view of the matter, and in view of the provisions referred above, I do not find any illegality on the part of the 4th respondent-Bank in adjusting the amount in full in two accounts and towards principal amount in other accounts. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in these writ petitions, and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.