ORDER Gangele, J. -- 1. Since, all these three above writ petitions have been filed against the judgment passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 14th May, 2012, they were heard together and we are passing the order in regard to confirmation of stay. 2. Writ Petition No.6439/2012 has been filed by Shikha Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as “the auction purchaser”), Writ Petition No.6780/2012 has been filed by LIC Housing Finance Limited and others and Writ Petition No.4389/2012 has been filed by Smt. Raina Katariya and Dr. Tejuram Katariya. In Writ Petition No.4389/2012, this Court granted an interim relief vide order dated 9.7.2012 and directed that no coercive steps be taken affecting the rights of the petitioners (the borrowers). Similarly, in Writ Petition No.6780/2012, this Court vide order dated 18.9.2012 granted an interim relief to the effect that till further orders possession from the auction purchaser shall not be taken and in Writ Petition No.4389/2012 also similar stay order was granted vide order dated 18.9.2012. Thereafter, the Writ Petition No.6439/2012 was admitted for hearing on 26.9.2011, however, it is observed that interim order granted earlier shall be considered for confirmation on the next date of hearing. In all the writ petitions, the interim orders have not been confirmed. The returns and rejoinders have been filed because the Writ Petition No.6439/2012 has been admitted for hearing hence, all the petitions were heard on the question of confirmation of stay order and we are passing the order in regard to confirmation of stay order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Raina Katariya and Dr. Tejuram Katariya (hereinafter referred to as “the borrower”) submitted an application to LIC Housing Finance Limited in regard to grant of a house loan. The company sanctioned the house loan to the aforesaid persons amounting to Rs.14.00 lacs. An amount of Rs.12,47,706/- was disbursed to Smt. Raina Katariya and Dr. Tejuram Katariya and as a security, the aforesaid persons mortgaged the property i.e. the house under construction to the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Admittedly, the aforesaid persons did not pay the loan amount and 13 cheques tendered by them were dishonoured. The loan amount was classified as ‘NPA’ and a notice was issued vide registered post on 4.5.2009 to the aforesaid persons. It was returned back, thereafter another notice was issued. The notice was also served on the guarantor. The loan amount was classified as ‘NPA’ and a notice was issued vide registered post on 4.5.2009 to the aforesaid persons. It was returned back, thereafter another notice was issued. The notice was also served on the guarantor. Thereafter, after a period of 60 days, the authorized officer of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. took possession of the property and notice was issued on 17.8.2009. It was refused. Thereafter, the notice was published in daily newspaper on 23.8.2009. A sale notice was issued to the borrowers, it was published in daily newspaper on 26.11.2009. Thereafter, the auction was conducted. The bid of the auction purchaser was accepted on 26.12.2009. A sale certificate was issued on 17.1.2010 and the registry was also executed with the Sub-Registrar, Gwalior. 4. Thereafter, the borrowers filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.291/20010 before this Court and the petition was dismissed vide order dated 26.8.2011 on the ground of alternative remedy. Against the aforesaid order, a writ appeal bearing Writ Appeal No.461/2011 was filed by the borrowers, that was also dismissed. The borrowers thereafter filed the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, which was registered as Securitisation Appeal No.192/2012. The Debts Recovery Tribunal vide judgment dated 14th May, 2012 allowed the appeal with the following direction : “Following these above cited decisions which are squarely applicable to the lis in this appeal this Tribunal is of opinion that the sale conducted by the Bank found to be vitiated with legalities is to be quashed. Though the challenge in respect of proceedings upto taking of possession under section 13(4) r/w rule 8(1) and (2) is found to be barred by limitation, the sale being found to be illegally conducted on 30th day (i.e. before expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of auction notice R-3) and sale certificate registered as per R-4 is set aside and ordered as follows : (1) The respondent is directed to take possession of the secured assets from the auction purchaser R-4 forthwith who shall be refunded the purchase price with interest at FD rate from the date of deposit till payment is made. (2) The appellant is directed to liquidate the dues in full as on date within a period of 45 days from the date of this judgment. (2) The appellant is directed to liquidate the dues in full as on date within a period of 45 days from the date of this judgment. (3) If the dues are not liquidated in full, the Bank is at liberty to proceed as per law with the recovery of dues by proceeding to auction the property. (4) The charges incurred for auction of the property shall not be included in the account of the appellant who shall also be paid costs of this proceedings by adjusting the same in the dues.” Against the aforesaid judgment, the LIC Housing Finance preferred a second appeal before the appellate Tribunal, that has been dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated 1.8.2012. The Tribunal has held that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed and it had no power and authority to condone the delay. Hence, writ petition (Writ Petition 6780/2012) has been filed. Other two petitions have been filed directly before this Court without availing the alternative remedy; one by Shikha Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through its President (auction purchaser) and another by Smt. Raina Katariya and Dr. Tejuram Katariya (borrowers). 5. The main question for confirmation of stay before this Court is that whether the auction conducted by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. was in accordance with rules or not. The Tribunal has held that the auction was held in contravention to rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, because the auction was not conducted after 30 days from publication of notice and no notice to the mortgagor as required under rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002 was issued. 6. We have called the record of auction and also perused the record. 7. Before considering the merits of the case, it is well settled principle of law in regard to grant of interim relief, the Court has to consider that whether a prima facie case exists in favour of a party or whether the party has indefensible right in its favour and if a stay be not granted, the party would suffer adversely. Before considering the merits of the case, it is well settled principle of law in regard to grant of interim relief, the Court has to consider that whether a prima facie case exists in favour of a party or whether the party has indefensible right in its favour and if a stay be not granted, the party would suffer adversely. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (b) of section 38 with sub-sctions (4), (10) and (12) of section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act”) framed the Rules named as “Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002” (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2002”). Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules of 2002 prescribes issuance of demand of notice, rule 4 prescribes procedure after issuance of notice and rule 5 prescribes valuation of movable secured assets. Similarly, rule 8 of the Rules of 2002 prescribes sale of immovable secured assets. The aforesaid rule is as under : “8. Sale of immovable secured assets. -- (1) Where the secured assets is an immovable property, the authorized officer shall take or cause to be taken possession, by delivering a possession notice prepared as nearly as possible in Appendix IV to these rules, to the borrower and by affixing the possession notice on the outer door or at such conspicuous place of the property. (2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be published, as soon as possible but in any case later than seven days from the date of taking possession, in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, but the authorized officer. (3) In the event of possession of immovable property is actually taken by the authorized officer, such property shall be kept in his own custody or in the custody of any person authorized or appointed by him, who shall take as much care of the property in his custody as an owner of ordinary prudence would, under the similar circumstances, take of such property. (4) The authorized officer shall take steps for preservation and protection of secured assets and insure them, if necessary, till they are sold or otherwise disposed of. (4) The authorized officer shall take steps for preservation and protection of secured assets and insure them, if necessary, till they are sold or otherwise disposed of. (5) Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 9, the authorized officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of the following methods : (a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets or otherwise interested in buying the such assets; or (b) by inviting tenders from the public; (c) by holding public auction; or (d) by private treaty. (6) The authorized officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the immovable secured assets, under sub-rule (5) : Provided that if the sale of such secured asset is being effected by either inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the secured creditor shall cause a public notice in two leading newspapers; one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in the locality by setting out the terms of sale, which shall include, -- (a) the description of the immovable property to be sold, including the details of the encumbrances known to the secured creditor; (b) the secured debt for recovery of which the property is to be sold; (c) reserve price, below which the property may not be sold; (d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed; (e) depositing earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor; (f) any other thing which the authorized officer considers it material for a purchaser to know in order to Judge the nature and value of the property. (7) Every notice of sale shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the immovable property and may, if the authorized officer deems it fit, put on the web-site of the secured creditor on the internet. (7) Every notice of sale shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the immovable property and may, if the authorized officer deems it fit, put on the web-site of the secured creditor on the internet. (8) Sale by any method other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing.” In our opinion, rule 8(5) is important because in accordance with the aforesaid rule, it is necessary on the part of the authorized officer to obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer before affecting the sale of the immovable property in consultation with secured creditor. It is also necessary on the part of the authorized officer to fix the reserve price of the property and one of the mode of sale of the immovable secured assets is by inviting tenders. Rule 8(6) further prescribes that the authorized officer shall serve to the borrowers a notice of 30 days for sale of immovable secured assets under sub-rule (5). Rule 9 prescribes time of sale, issuance of sale certificate and delivery of possession. 8. In the present case, notice of sale was published by the LIC Housing Finance in Raj Express dated 26.11.2009. In the aforesaid notice, the reserve price of the property has been mentioned as under : dz- _.kh@laifRr ekfyd vkjf{kr ewY; laifRr dk fooj.k dCtk uksfVl /kjksgj dk uke ¼:-½ dh fnukad jkf’k 3- Jherh jSuk dVkfj;k :- 14]50]000@& 55@385 xk<+os dh 17-8-2009 :-1]45]000 Jh rstwjke dVkfj;k xksB] ekek dk cktkj] ek/ko xat y’dj] Xokfy;j By the aforesaid notice, the tenders were invited. The sale was scheduled to take place on 26.12.2009. We have perused the record of auction register produced by the LIC Housing Finance Limited. It is mentioned in the auction register that reserve price of the property was fixed as Rs.14,50,000/-. Mr. Dilip Purshwani and Sharmila Agarwal and Samar Veer Singh offered their bids and bid amount was Rs.15.00 lacs. The following are the descriptions mentioned in the register : “Auction date 26.12.2009 S.No. Name Account No. 1. Mr. Tejuram Raina Kataria 211120987 Prop. Address Reserve Price 55/835, Gadve Ki Goat, Rs.14,50,000/- Mama-ka-Bazar, Madhav Ganj, Lashkar, Gwalior Name of Authorized Officer : Mr. Vikas Awasthi, Manager (Operations) Signature Back Office, Bhopal Opened in presence of (1) Mr. Adarsh Shukla Signature AM, LIC HFL, Gwalior (2) Mr. Mr. Tejuram Raina Kataria 211120987 Prop. Address Reserve Price 55/835, Gadve Ki Goat, Rs.14,50,000/- Mama-ka-Bazar, Madhav Ganj, Lashkar, Gwalior Name of Authorized Officer : Mr. Vikas Awasthi, Manager (Operations) Signature Back Office, Bhopal Opened in presence of (1) Mr. Adarsh Shukla Signature AM, LIC HFL, Gwalior (2) Mr. Amit Saxena, Signature Associate LIC HFL, Gwalior (3) Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Signature 166, Tansen Nagar, Gwalior Name of bidder : 1. Dilip Purshwani 2. Sharmila Agarwal 3. Sameer Veer Singh. Details of DD : 1. 243313 dated 17.12.2009 Indian Bank (Rs.14,50,000/-) 2. 223419 dated 24.12.2009 Indian Bank (Rs.14,60,000/-) 3. 274878 dated 24.12.2009 Jila Sahakari (Rs.15,00,000/-) Bid amount (Rs.15,00,000/-) in favour of Shri Samar Veer Singh c/o Shikha Grih Nirman. Sign.” It is not clear from the auction register that how many persons participated in the auction proceedings, what was the time of auction and what was the final bid. It is simply mentioned the names of three bidders i.e. Mr. Dilip Purshwani and Sharmila Agarwal and Samar Veer Singh and the bid amount has been mentioned as Rs.15.00 lacs. Nowhere, it is mentioned that before sale the authorized officer served the borrowers a notice of 30 days. We have also perused the register. It is only in regard to one person and it is said that the auction was held on 26.12.2009, however, from the perusal of the register, it does not appear that auction was held as mentioned in the register. The time of the auction has also been not mentioned in the register. There is no record in regard to obtaining valuation of the property by the authorized officer as prescribed under rule 8(5) of the Rules of 2002 from the approved valuer. In details of DD, the dates is mentioned as 17.12.2009 and 24.12.2009, the auction was held on 26.12.2009. In our opinion, it is not possible to prepare a draft before auction because a person had no knowledge about the amount of auction. 9. From the documents and after perusal of the auction register and after considering the facts of the case, in our opinion, the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. has not conducted the auction of the property in accordance with the statutory rules. The whole proceedings are in contravention to the statutory rules. From the record, it appears that there was no auction at all and the property was sold to the auction purchaser with collusion. The whole proceedings are in contravention to the statutory rules. From the record, it appears that there was no auction at all and the property was sold to the auction purchaser with collusion. The Finance Company has a right to sale the property of the borrower if he fails to repay the loan, however, certain safeguards have been provided to the borrowers, so the property cannot be sold in a throw away price. It is borne in mind that it is statutory duty of the authority to receive proper price of the property of the borrowers, which was mortgaged. 10. From the perusal of the record, we have gathered an impression that the authority in collusion of the auction purchaser had sold the property without holding an auction. These are our preliminary findings, however, in our opinion, an inquiry is necessary so the interest of the borrowers could be protected and such an episode could be avoided. Hence, the office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, who may inquire the matter independently to the effect that whether any auction of sale was conducted or not or whether the transction was the fake one. It is hereby clarified that we have not expressed any opinion about this aspect in this order but looking to the interest of the justice, in our opinion, inquiry is necessary so it can be find out that whether any offence has been committed or not. 11. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, the auction purchaser and LIC Housing Finance Ltd. are not entitled for any relief. Hence, the stay order granted in favour of auction purchaser in Writ Petition No.6439/2012 and Writ Petition No.6780/2012 is hereby vacated and the prayer for grant of interim relief of the auction purchaser and application of the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. i.e. I.A. No.8036/2012 for grant of ad interim relief are hereby rejected.