JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J. — The petitioner has filed this writ application with a prayer to quash the letter dated 3.3.2010 issued by the Authorized Officer, Bank of India vide Annexure-5, wherein the proposal of the petitioner for settlement of his loan dues has been rejected and further prayer has been made to direct the opposite party-Bank to accept the proposal submitted by the petitioner on 28.1.2010 vide Annexure-4 for One Time Settlement of the loan dues with the offer amount of Rs.38 lakhs in two installments. 2.The brief fact as delineated in the writ application tends to reveal that the opposite party-Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.39.00 lakhs, i.e. cash credit loan of Rs.22.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs. loan 17.00 lakhs in favour of the petitioner. Out of the said sanctioned amount of Rs.39.00 lakhs, the petitioner availed Rs.37.00 lakhs, i.e. cash credit loan of Rs.22.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.15.00 lakhs. Against the aforesaid loan, the homestead property of the petitioner appertaining to, Plot No.1750/4077/4379 under Khata No. 648/1392 with an area of Ac.0.52 dec was mortgaged with the Bank as collateral security and the plant and machinery, stock of paddy, rice, husk etc of the Rice Mill were hypothecated as the primary security. When the petitioner failed to reply the loan dues, notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued demanding an amount of Rs.40,62,297/- and thereafter when the petitioner could not deposit the said amount, the opposite party-Bank took possession of the Rice Mill and mortgaged homestead property of the petitioner. Thereafter the sale notice was published in the newspaper on 1.1.2010 (Annexure-3). 3.Prior to the sale notice dated 1.1.2010, a sale notice had also been published by the opposite party-Bank on 13.9.2009 wherein the reserve price was fixed at Rs.8,41,000/- and challenging the said sale notice, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15276 of 2009. At the stage of admission, on 19.10.2009 this Court as an interim measure directed that on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the opposite party-Bank by end of October, 2009, the property in question would not be put to auction and the petitioner would not be dispossessed without leave of this Court, till next date. At the stage of admission, on 19.10.2009 this Court as an interim measure directed that on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the opposite party-Bank by end of October, 2009, the property in question would not be put to auction and the petitioner would not be dispossessed without leave of this Court, till next date. 4.On 11.11.2009, on the submission of learned counsel for the Bank that the petitioner instead of pursuing the writ petition before this Court, should approach the Bank either for settlement of the loan amount under the One Time Settlement Scheme or for fixing suitable installments to repay the entire outstanding loan amount and on the counsel for the petitioner agreeing to the suggestion made by the counsel for the Bank, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case disposed of the said W.P.(C) No. 15276 of 2009 with a direction to the petitioner to file appropriate application for settlement of the outstanding loan amount under the One Time Settlement Scheme of the Bank or for payment of the loan amount in suitable installments within one month from that date. It was also directed that in the event of filing such an application, the Bank would consider the same and take a decision thereon within 15 days thereafter. Protection had also been granted to the petitioner till a decision is taken by the Bank in the matter. It is worthwhile to mention here that on the suggestion of the Bank the aforesaid order was passed. 5.Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 11.11.2009, the Petitioner approached the Bank on 14.11.2009 with an offer of Rs.30,00,000/-, but the said offer of the petitioner was rejected by the Bank on 20.11.2009 on the ground that the offer was low compared to the value of securities, prices it would fetch and the petitioner’s contractual dues to the Bank. 6.Thereafter another sale notice was published on 1.1.2010 wherein the reserve price was fixed at Rs.40,62,297/- in respect of the Rice Mill and the homestead property of the petitioner. Challenging the said sale notice, the petitioner filed another writ application being W.P.(C) No. 863 of 2010. In the said writ application the petitioner had also challenged the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Bank rejecting the offer made by the petitioner in his representation dated 14.11.2009. Challenging the said sale notice, the petitioner filed another writ application being W.P.(C) No. 863 of 2010. In the said writ application the petitioner had also challenged the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Bank rejecting the offer made by the petitioner in his representation dated 14.11.2009. 7.On 18.1.2010, on the submission of learned counsel for the Bank that the offer made by the petitioner was very low and unacceptable, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.863 of 2010 with a direction to the petitioner to improve his offer and approach the Bank for One Time Settlement by end of January, 2010 and the Bank was also directed to take a decision by 15.2.2010 on receipt of such revised offer and the Bank was restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioner till 15.2.2010. 8.In terms of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 18.1.2010, the petitioner submitted his representation on 28.1.2010 by improving his offer to the extent of Rs.38.00 lakhs as against the reserve price of sale Rs.40,62,297/-. According to the petitioner, though in terms of the order of this Court dated 18.1.2010, the Bank had to take a decision by 15.2.2010, the Bank did not take any decision, for which the petitioner filed another writ application being W.P.(C) No. 3284 of 2010 against the inaction of opposite party-Bank. 9.On 22.2.2010, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.3284 of 2010 directing the opposite party-bank to take a decision on the revised offer of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from that date. The petitioner was also directed to bring the order of this Court to the notice of the opposite party-Bank and the liberty was given to him to file appropriate petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, in the event of failure of the opposite parties to comply with the order. 10.After the aforesaid order of this Court was passed, the Authorized Officer of opposite party-Bank took the decision on 3.3.2010 on the representation of the petitioner dated 28.1.2010 and the petitioner received the same on 11.3.2011. 11.The decision of the Authorized Officer of the Bank communicated in the letter dated 3.3.2010 vide Annexure-5 is impugned in this present writ application. 10.After the aforesaid order of this Court was passed, the Authorized Officer of opposite party-Bank took the decision on 3.3.2010 on the representation of the petitioner dated 28.1.2010 and the petitioner received the same on 11.3.2011. 11.The decision of the Authorized Officer of the Bank communicated in the letter dated 3.3.2010 vide Annexure-5 is impugned in this present writ application. 12.On perusal of the letter dated 3.3.2010, we find that the petitioner’s proposal dated 28.1.2010 has been rejected on the ground that the offer of payment of Rs.33.00 lakh in two instalment without any time frame/limit towards full satisfaction of Bank’s dues is not acceptable on the ground that his loan account was very substandard and irregular, he has filed two writ petitions making the Bank to pay the legal expenses including Advocate’s fees and as per Banking norm no part of the principal or the interest can be waived, which will convey wrong signal to existing loanees. 13.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.3.2010 on the ground that though the petitioner has taken a loan of Rs.37.00 lakhs as against the sanctioned loan of Rs.39.00, the opposite parties stated that the petitioner has taken a loan of Rs.39.00 lakhs. The second ground is that when the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the proposal for settling the loan account with a further amount of Rs.33.00 lakhs will cause no loss to the Bank. The opposite parties are going to sale the house and land of the petitioner at a very lesser price than the prevailing market value. The opposite parties are going to sale the Rice Mill and homestead land of the petitioner on the reserve price of Rs.40,62,297/-, but at the same time they are demanding Rs.46.85 lakhs from the petitioner. 14.Fact remains that on 3.3.2010 while disposing of the representation of the petitioner, the Authorized Officer of opposite party-bank has stated that the outstanding dues against the petitioner was Rs.46.85 lakhs, whereas by that time the property of the petitioner has already been sold to O.P.3. The representation of the petitioner was disposed of by P.K. Das, Authorized Officer in a very fraudulent manner in order to show that the disposal order has been passed pending sale of the property in question. 15.On 29.3.2010 before issuing notice, this Court, on the appearances of Mr. The representation of the petitioner was disposed of by P.K. Das, Authorized Officer in a very fraudulent manner in order to show that the disposal order has been passed pending sale of the property in question. 15.On 29.3.2010 before issuing notice, this Court, on the appearances of Mr. Tuna Sahu, learned counsel for the O.P.-Bank, directed him to inform this Court whether the Petitioner had availed the loan amounting to Rs.39.00 lakhs which had been sanctioned by the Bank or Rs.37.00 lakhs as claimed by the petitioner. 16.On 3.5.2010, Mr. Sahu submitted that though loan for an amount Rs.39.00 lakhs had been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner had only availed Rs.37.00 lakhs. He also submitted that the minimum price of the property under auction had been fixed at Rs.40,62,297/- as against the total outstanding dues of Rs.46,85,000/-. On that date, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Rs.40,62,297/- to settle the loan account once for all. On that date even, it was also not disclosed before this Court by the Bank that the property in Schedule-B, i.e. the homestead land, had already been sold to O.P.3. On 19.5.2010, when this fact was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court, while granting time to the opposite party-Bank to file counter affidavit, as an interim measure directed for maintenance of status quo as existing on that date regarding the property in question and not to put the Rice Mill to auction till next date. 17.On 14.12.2010, Misc. Case No. 17988 of 2010 filed by the petitioner to implead one Dasarathi Sahoo, S/o-Gangadhar Sahoo as an opposite party was allowed and said Dasarathi Sahoo was added as opposite party no.3 and accordingly notice was issued to him. O.P.3 also entered appearance through his counsel Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra. 18.On 31.1.2011, in order to know the genuineness of the submission of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.42,62,297/-, this Court while adjourning the matter to 28.2.2011 directed the petitioner to come with a draft for an amount of Rs.42,62,297/- drawn in favour of the Bank. On that date, O.P.3 was also restrained from changing the nature and character of the property in question in any manner whatsoever. On that date, O.P.3 was also restrained from changing the nature and character of the property in question in any manner whatsoever. 19.On 7.3.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a Bank draft for an amount of Rs.42,62,297/- drawn in favour of the Bank. However, the counsel for O.P.3 submitted that O.P.3 had already taken delivery of possession of the property in question on 22.1.2010. Learned counsel for the Bank was, however, not in a position to indicate the date on which the property had been given delivery of possession to O.P.3. However, the matter was directed to be listed on 15.3.2011 and the learned counsel for the Bank was directed to produce the entire records pertaining to the auction and delivery possession of the property in question. 20.On 15.3.2011, one Subash Chandra Mohanty, Chief Manager, Bank of India, Kharbela Nagar, Bhubaneswar filed an affidavit before this Court stating in paragraph-7 thus:- “The second sale notice was published on 01.01.2010 fixing the date of auction on 12.1.2010 at 3 P.M. On 12.1.2010, the auction purchaser (Opp. No. 3) deposited 25% and sale was confirmed on 22.1.2010 after depositing the balance amount of 75%. Bank handed over the physical possession on 22.1.2010 to the auction purchaser, the reason being earlier on 31.10.2008 Bank had taken possession of the property in question from the petitioner vide Annexure-2 Series.” 21.In the order passed on 15.3.2010, it was recorded that the order of this Court dated 18.1.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 863 of 2010 was passed in presence of Mr. Tuna Sahu. The opposite parties in W.P.(C) No.863 of 2010 are also the opposite parties in the present writ application. So on 3.3.2010, i.e. the date on which the representation of the petitioner dated 28.1.2010 was disposed of vide Annexure-5, the property was no more in the hands of the Bank. From the tenor of the letter in Annexure-5, as already stated, it can safely held that an effort has been made not to disclose the aforesaid fact of disposal of the property to the petitioner and the same fact was also kept out of the knowledge of this Court, even though this Court had passed several orders in this matter in presence of the counsel for the Bank. Therefore, this Court issued notice of contempt to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Kharavela Nagar Branch and Mr. Therefore, this Court issued notice of contempt to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Kharavela Nagar Branch and Mr. P.K. Das, the Ex-Authorized Officer, who did not disclose the fact as indicated above and gave wrong information to this Court. 22.On 30.3.2011, the draft for Rs.42,62,297/- which had been prepared in favour of the Bank was allowed to be returned to the petitioner to enable him to re-submit the same in the name of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The petitioner deposited the draft in favour of the Registrar (Judicial) and on 19.4.2011 the said amount was directed to be kept in an interest bearing account. 23.An affidavit was filed by the said Ex-Authorized Officer, P.K. Das on 25.4.2011, wherein he had indicated that open public auction was conducted on 12.1.2010, but no bid was received for the Rice Mill. But the homestead property was sold to O.P.3 under public gazette at a price of Rs.11,50,000/- as against the reserve price of Rs.8,50,000/-. He has also indicated in the said affidavit that the publication of sale notice in two newspapers is sufficient notice to the public in general including the petitioner and the petitioner was fully aware of the auction of the secured assets. However in paragraphs-13 and 14 said P.K. Das has stated thus:- 13. That it is the deponents misfortune that due to unabating pressure of work on me as the Head of the Asset Recovery Department of Zone and Authorized Officer under SARFAESI Act 2002 for many NPA accounts of the branches is in the Zone, I committed the lapse of not responding to the letter of the petitioner dated 28.1.2010 in time. The delay is a lapse on my part. 14. That I also admit to the genuine lapse that the Hon’ble Court could not be properly apprised of the status of the secured assets on 18.1.2010 in W.P.(C) No.8630 of 2010 or on 22.2.2010 in W.P.(C) No.3284 of 2010 either by me or by Sri Tuna Sahu, Advocate. It was an inadvertent oversight, and I seek the forgiveness of the Hon’ble Court for my mistake, as this was purely unintentional.” 24.The Bank in its counter affidavit has taken, almost the same stand and has indicated that only the homestead property of the petitioner has been sold and the Rice Mill and its property has not been sold. It was an inadvertent oversight, and I seek the forgiveness of the Hon’ble Court for my mistake, as this was purely unintentional.” 24.The Bank in its counter affidavit has taken, almost the same stand and has indicated that only the homestead property of the petitioner has been sold and the Rice Mill and its property has not been sold. 25.The petitioner has raised the questions like, in the notice dated 1.1.2010 (Annexure-2) only 12 days’ time was granted and the second one is that the Bank has clandestinely sold the property. 26.Fact remains that initial sale notice was issued on 13.9.2009 fixing the date of auction to 19.10.2009 and in the subsequent sale notice issued on 1.1.2010, which according to the Bank is a corrigendum notice, the date of auction was fixed to 12.1.2010. In our considered opinion, when the notice was published afresh, in terms of Rule-9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 a clear 30 days’s notice should have been given. That apart, from the letter dated 12.1.2010 issued by the Authorized Officer to O.P.3 vide Annexure-A/1 to the counter filed by the Bank, it is revealed that O.P.3 did not deposit 25% of the sale price of Rs.11,50,000/- on 12.1.2010 and the Authorized Officer had granted time to O.P.3 to deposit the 25% of the sale price. In this regard, sub-Rule (3) of Rule-9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 may be referred and the same speaks thus:- “On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately pay a deposit of twenty-five per cent of the amount of the sale price, to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be sold again.” 27.So the aforesaid provision does not empower the Authorized Officer to grant time to deposit 25% of the amount of sale price. From the letter under Annexure-A/1 it is found that instead of putting the property to sale again, the Authorized Officer has granted time to O.P.3 to deposit the 25% of the sale amount. Apart from the irregularities and suspicious conduct of the Authorized Officer by not dealing with the representation of the petitioner properly, the sale was vitiated with illegality, which had been committed by the Authorized Officer. Apart from the irregularities and suspicious conduct of the Authorized Officer by not dealing with the representation of the petitioner properly, the sale was vitiated with illegality, which had been committed by the Authorized Officer. 28.It is worth mentioning here that on 18.1.2010 this Court passed an order in W.P.(C) No.863 of 2010 allowing the petitioner to improve his offer and submit the same by end of January, 2010 and the Bank was directed to take a decision on the same by 15.2.2010 and till then it was directed not to take any coercive action. According to learned counsel for the Bank, on the same day he intimated opposite party No.1 about the order passed by this Court on 18.1.2010, as the certified copy of the order was not available on that date. Thereafter on receipt of the certified copy of the order on 21.1.2010, he sent the same on 23.1.2010 to the Authorized Officer, who received the same on 25.1.2010. 29.From the aforesaid, it is clear that opposite party no.1 was aware of the order of this Court dated 18.1.2010 on the same day and on 21.1.2010, the Bank had also received the certified copy of the order, but the sale of the Schedule-B property was confirmed on 22.1.2010. However, the letter dated 12.1.2010 written by the Authorized Officer to O.P.3 (Annexure-A/1 to the counter of the Bank), shows that the Authorized Officer granted time to O.P.3 till 27.1.2010 to deposit the entire sale dues and on 22.1.2010, the sale was confirmed. 30.When the order of this Court dated 18.1.2010 was passed in presence of the counsel for the Bank and the said fact had also been intimated to the Bank by the counsel, which has not been refuted by anybody, the sale should not have been confirmed on 22.1.2010. This shows that the sale has been confirmed in violation of our order dated 18.1.2010. 31.O.P.No.3, who is the auction purchaser, has also indicated in his counter affidavit, and his counsel has also vehemently argued, relying upon the letter dated 12.1.2010, that he has already deposited the entire amount. He further claimed that he has made certain renovations and further constructions over the property and has spent about Rs.12,70,000/-. 31.O.P.No.3, who is the auction purchaser, has also indicated in his counter affidavit, and his counsel has also vehemently argued, relying upon the letter dated 12.1.2010, that he has already deposited the entire amount. He further claimed that he has made certain renovations and further constructions over the property and has spent about Rs.12,70,000/-. 32.Be that as it may, we have no hesitation to hold that the auction made in favour of O.P.3 is in violation of Rules-9(1) and 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and O.P.3 cannot claim any equity. That apart, O.P.3 is the beneficiary of the irregularities committed in this case. When the petitioner is ready and willing to square up the loan dues and to show his bona fide has already deposited an amount of Rs.42,62,297/- before this Court, we have no hesitation to allow the petitioner to settle his loan amount. 33.We accordingly direct the Bank to immediately withdraw the amount of Rs.42,62,297/-, which has been deposited before this Court along with the interest accrued thereon and after withdrawal of the aforesaid amount, the Bank shall release the Rice Mill in question immediately to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be done within seven days from today. Thereafter the Bank shall compute the balance amount to be paid by the petitioner and raise a demand on the petitioner giving him seven days’ time to pay the balance demanded amount. On payment of the same by the petitioner, the Bank shall take possession of the homestead property of the petitioner from O.P.3 and deliver the same to the petitioner immediately. O.P.3 is also directed to handover peaceful possession of the same to the Bank. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. There shall be no order as to cost. B.K. MISRA, J.I agree. Petition disposed of.