Judgment :- K.K. Sasidharan, J. Introductory: 1. These two Writ Petitions raises a short point of some importance relating to the relevance of proclamation in Auction Sale proceedings. 2. The Writ Petitions are at the instance of a borrower, and the challenge is to the sale notice dated 16th May 2012 in DRC No.36/2012 in O.A. No.222/2010 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai, and the related Auction proceedings dated 26th June 2012 on the file of the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The facts: 3. The Adyar Branch of Indian Bank granted financial assistance of M/s. Anbu Pazhamudir Nilayam, stated to be a Partnership Firm. The Writ Petitioner and Respondents 3 & 4 were the partners of the said Firm. The Petitioner also executed a Guarantee Deed undertaking to pay the amount due from the Second Respondent besides mortgaging the subject property. 4. The Second Respondent failed to pay the loan amount and this resulted in initiating recovery proceedings by the Bank. The Bank filed O.A.No.222 of 2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”]. Though the Petitioner was also a party to the proceedings, he has not chosen to appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was pleased to issue a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs.7,99,09,385/-authorizing the Bank to recover the said sum with interest. The Petitioner challenged the order dated 28th December 2011 in O.A. No.222 of 2010 before the Tribunal. 5. While so, the Recovery Officer initiated steps to auction the property mortgaged by the Petitioner. The Recovery Officer initially attached the property and thereafter issued an Auction Notice dated 16th May 2012 indicating that the property would be auctioned on 26th June 2012. Accordingly, auction was conducted on 26th June 2012. The bid submitted by Mr. M.C. Kandasami and V. Saravanan for a sum of Rs.65 lakhs was found to be the highest bid. The joint bidders have deposited a sum of Rs.16.25 lakhs being 25% of the bid amount. However, confirmation has not been issued. The Sale Notice dated 16th May 2012 and the related Auction proceedings are challenged in this Writ Petition primarily on the ground that before auctioning the property, proclamation of sale was not issued by the Recovery Officer. 6. The joint bidders have deposited a sum of Rs.16.25 lakhs being 25% of the bid amount. However, confirmation has not been issued. The Sale Notice dated 16th May 2012 and the related Auction proceedings are challenged in this Writ Petition primarily on the ground that before auctioning the property, proclamation of sale was not issued by the Recovery Officer. 6. According to the Petitioner, his statutory Appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal was pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal”]. The Appeal was not numbered on account of the delay in re-presentation. While so, the Recovery Officer issued the impugned Sale Notice and thereafter conducted the Sale proceedings on 26th June 2012. It is the case of the Petitioner that the mandatory provisions of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act made applicable to the proceedings for recovery under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act has not been complied with by the Recovery Officer. According to the Petitioner, Rule 52(2) of the II Schedule mandates that the Tax Recovery Officer shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of the District before ordering sale of the immovable property. It was his further contention that the property would easily fetch Rs.One crore and as such, the Recovery Officer was not justified in accepting the bid for Rs.65 lakhs without making earnest efforts to obtain the correct value of the property. 7. The Chief Minister, A.R.M. Branch, Indian Bank, filed a detailed Counter Affidavit disputing the claim made by the Petitioner. According to the Bank, all the procedures laid down under II Schedule to the Income Tax Act were followed by the Recovery Officer in its letter and spirit and as such, no interference is called for in the proceedings in question. The Bank further contended that the sale Notification was published in Daily Thanthi and on account of wide publicity, several bidders participated in the Auction proceedings. Accordingly, the Bank justified the impugned Auction proceedings. Rival submissions: 8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Recovery Officer has not followed the mandatory provisions of the Act before bringing the property for sale. Accordingly, the Bank justified the impugned Auction proceedings. Rival submissions: 8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Recovery Officer has not followed the mandatory provisions of the Act before bringing the property for sale. Though the Petitioner in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition contended that the sale notice was not issued to him, the learned Counsel submitted that subsequent enquiry revealed that the Sale Notice sent by post was accepted b somebody. According to the learned Counsel, Recovery Officer was expected to issue a notice of proclamation with details of the property including the estimated value and the reserve price. The requirement regarding issuance of proclamation is a mandatory one, violation of which would invalidate the Sale proceedings. The learned Counsel further contended that in case proclamation is issued, the Petitioner would be in a position to ascertain the value assessed by the Recovery Officer. The learned Counsel, therefore, wanted this Court to quash the impugned proceedings and issue appropriate direction to the Recovery Officer to follow the statutory provisions in the matter of sale of mortgaged property in execution of Recovery Certificate. 9. The learned Counsel for the Bank contended that the sale notice was served on the Petitioner sufficiently earlier. According to the learned Counsel, in case the Petitioner is aggrieved, he has to approach the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale. Since the Petitioner has got an alternative and efficacious remedy, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. The learned Counsel further contended that Proviso (a) of Rule 61 of the Income Tax Rules clearly gives an indication that no sale shall be set aside on any such ground, unless the Tax Recovery Officer is satisfied that the Applicant has sustained substantial injury on account of non issuance of proclamation of sale. The Petitioner has not proved that he sustained substantial injury on account of the failure of Recovery Officer to issue proclamation of sale. The learned Counsel by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Jaswantlal Natvarlal Thakkar v. Sushilaben Manilal Dangarwala, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 691, and Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd., 1974 (2) SCC 213 , contended that unless the Petitioner demonstrated that there were material irregularities in the conduct of sale, proceedings cannot be quashed. Discussion: 10. Discussion: 10. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as RDBI], was enacted to provide for the establishment of Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions. The Act provides for adjudication of the dispute between the Bank and the borrowers and issuance of Recovery Certificates. Section 25 of the RDBI Act provides for the mode for recovery of debts. The Tribunal after the disposal of the proceedings would issue Recovery Certificates, so as to enable the Recovery Officer to recover the amount from the judgment debtors. Section 29 of the RDBI Act provides that provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as in force from time to time, shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications to the proceedings under the RDBI Act. The Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act contains the detailed provisions regarding recovery and the steps to be taken by the Recovery Officer before auctioning the immovable property. Part III of the Second Schedule deals with attachment and sale of immovable property. Rule 52 gives authority to the Recovery Officer to sell the immovable property under attachment to satisfy the Recovery Certificate. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 52 provides that before any such sale is made, the Tax Recovery Officer shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of the district. Rule 53 gives an indication with regard to the contents of proclamation. Similarly, Rule 54 provides for the manner of making proclamation. 11. The proclamation by its very nature is a mandatory requirement in view of the language used by the law makers. Even though discretion is given to the Tax Recovery Officer to take a decision as to whether the immovable property should actually be sold in execution of the Recovery Certificate, no such discretion is given to him to dispense with the issuance of proclamation of sale. The Rule makers have, in very clear terms, indicated the need for issuance of proclamation of sale including its contents. Even the mode of making proclamation is found mentioned in the Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proclamation of sale is an empty formality. 12. The Rule makers have, in very clear terms, indicated the need for issuance of proclamation of sale including its contents. Even the mode of making proclamation is found mentioned in the Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proclamation of sale is an empty formality. 12. The requirement regarding issuance of proclamation of sale was made for a specific purpose. The owner of the property should be in a position to know the details of the property intended for sale, valuation and the reserve price. In case the value of the property is grossly undervalued, it would enable the owner of the property to approach the Recovery Officer. In fact, Rule 55 of the Income Tax Rules clearly provides that there should be a minimum period of thirty days between the date of proclamation and the date of sale. The very fact that Rule 55 provides for a gap of thirty days is also an indication that issuance of proclamation of sale is a mandatory requirement. 13. The Counter Affidavit filed by the Bank does not contain any indication whether proclamation of sale was issued by the Recovery Officer before issuing the sale notice. Therefore, we have summoned the original records from the Tribunal. We have perused the entire records. We are convinced that the Recovery Officer has not issued the proclamation of sale before issuing the Sale Notification dated 16th May 2012. In view of this, there is no difficulty to arrive at a conclusion that the impugned sale was made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Income Tax Rules, made applicable to the proceedings under the RDBI Act. 14. The learned Counsel for the Bank took a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions on account of alternate remedy. It is true that Rule 51 provides for an Application to be made before the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale of immovable property on the ground of non-service of notice or irregularity. It is also true that there is an indication in the said Rule that no sale shall be set aside unless the Applicant has sustained substantial injury on reason of non-service or irregularity. 15. It is also true that there is an indication in the said Rule that no sale shall be set aside unless the Applicant has sustained substantial injury on reason of non-service or irregularity. 15. The Supreme Court in Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd., 1974 (2) SCC 213 , by following Neyalkha and sons v. Ramanya Das, 1969 (3) SCC 537 , observed that substantial injury without material irregularity is not enough to set aside sale. The Supreme Court said: The expression “material irregularity in the conduct of the sale” must be benignantly construed to cover the climax act of the Court accepting the highest bid. Indeed, under the Civil Procedure Code, it is the Court which conducts the sale and its duty to apply its mind to the material factors bearing on the reasonableness of the price offered is part of the process of obtaining a proper price in the course of the sale. Therefore, failure to apply its mind to this aspect of the conduct of the sale may amount to material irregularity. Here, substantial injury without material irregularity is not enough even as material irregularity not linked directly to inadequacy of the price is insufficient. And where a Court mechanically conducts the sale or routinely signs assent to the sale papers, not bothering to see if the offer is too low and a better price could have been obtained, and in fact the price is substantially inadequate, there is the presence of both the elements of irregularity and injury. 16. The Supreme Court in Jaswantlal Natvarlal Thakkar v. Sushilaben Manilal Dangarwala and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 691, in the context of Order 21, Rules 72 & 90, observed that mere illegality or irregularity in the conduct of sale alone would not be sufficient to set aside the sale. The party must also prove substantial injury. 17. The Petitioner in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition stated that the Valuation Report was obtained on 5th March 2012 and the reserve price was fixed at Rs.22 lakhs. According to the Petitioner, the property is situated very near to the main road at Kalingiyam Village, Gobichettipalayam and it would easily fetch a minimum sum of Rs.One crore. The Auction proceedings indicates that the successful bidder has offered a sum of Rs.65 lakhs. According to the Petitioner, the property is situated very near to the main road at Kalingiyam Village, Gobichettipalayam and it would easily fetch a minimum sum of Rs.One crore. The Auction proceedings indicates that the successful bidder has offered a sum of Rs.65 lakhs. The very fact that the Recovery Officer received bids for a sum of Rs.65 lakhs notwithstanding the upset price fixed at Rs.22 lakhs itself would prove that the value of the property was not correctly fixed. 18. The Tax Recovery Officer was dealing with the property of a borrower. Merely because the Petitioner committed default, it cannot be said that his property should be sold for a paltry sum. In case the property is sold for a higher amount, it would benefit the Bank as well as the borrower. The Bank would be in a position to recover the maximum amount. The borrower would be relieved of the debt at least in part. Therefore, every effort should be taken by the Tax Recovery Officer to comply with the statutory formalities, before auctioning the property and his mission must be to receive the best price. It is trite that to obtain better offers, valuation of the property assumes significance in public sale. 19. In Kerala Financial Corporation v. Vincent Paul, 2011 (6) CTC 554 (SC) : 2011 (4) SCC 171 , the Supreme Court indicated that in the matter of sale of property, primary consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold and the essential ingredients of sale are correct valuation report and fixing reserve price. The Supreme Court further observed that in case proper valuation has not been made and the reserve price is fixed taking into consideration the inaccurate valuation report, the intending buyers may not come forward, treating the property as not worth purchase. 20. In case the proclamation of sale is issued, the proposed purchaser would have all details of the property at his command. This would enable all those, who are interested in the property to submit better offers. Mere sale notice is not sufficient. Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act therefore contains a mandatory provision regarding issuance of proclamation of sale and the details to be incorporated in such proclamation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proclamation is only a ritual. 21. Mere sale notice is not sufficient. Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act therefore contains a mandatory provision regarding issuance of proclamation of sale and the details to be incorporated in such proclamation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proclamation is only a ritual. 21. The factual matrix clearly shows that the Recovery Officer failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Rules. When it is made out that the Recovery Officer being the Officer of the Tribunal has committed material irregularity in the matter of sale, there is no question of relegating the Petitioner to an alternative forum. These are not matters which should be decided on the basis of technicalities. The Bank should always welcome better offers. In case the proclamation is made with notice to the Petitioner, the Recovery Officer would be in a better position to know the actual value of the property and to indicate the correct upset price. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned sale is liable to be set aside. 22. In the result, the impugned Sale Notice dated 16th May 2012 and the consequential Auction proceedings dated 26th June 2012 are quashed. 23. The Recovery Officer is directed to value the property once again and issue a Proclamation of Sale as provided under Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act and proceed afresh on merits and as per law. 24. In the upshot, we allow the Writ Petitions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.