JUDGMENT : G. S. SANDHAWALIA, J. The present judgment shall dispose of 3 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 17785, 14741 and 15248 of 2012 since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 17785 of 2012, M/s. IAA Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and another v. The Authorized Officer, UCO Bank and others (hereinafter referred to as the main case). 2. The present writ petition is filed by the borrower and one of the guarantors challenging the sale notice dated 23.03.2012 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent-bank and the subsequent order dated 12.07.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh (for brevity, DRT) in S.A. No. 179 of 2012 whereby, the sale of the property has been confirmed in favour of M/s. Ludhiana Mediways-respondent No. 2, the auction purchaser under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the SARFAESI Act). CWP No. 14741 of 2012 has been filed by the brother of petitioner No. 2 in the main case who is a guarantor and had mortgaged his residential property measuring 400 square yards situated at Sukhdev Nagar, South City, Ludhiana which is mentioned at Sr. No. 2 of the impugned sale notice. Similarly, CWP No. 15248 of 2012 has been filed by proposed buyer of the property which was auctioned to respondent No. 2. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is existing company duly incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act, 1956 while petitioner No. 2 is one of its Directors and also the guarantor with respect to the loan availed by petitioner No. 1 from the respondent No. 1-bank. Petitioner No. 2 is also the owner of one of the properties that is put to auction in pursuance to the sale notice, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. That petitioner No. 2, along with others being joint promoters of M/s. IAA Hospital Pvt. Ltd.-petitioner No. 1 set up a hospital in Ludhiana namely Ludhiana Mediciti (hereinafter referred to as the principal borrower). In order to finance the project, the respondent-bank was approached for the purpose of the grant of loan facility. Six term loan proposals were sanctioned which were to carry interest @ BPLR+2% i.e. 14.25% with monthly rests. In order to finance the project, the respondent-bank was approached for the purpose of the grant of loan facility. Six term loan proposals were sanctioned which were to carry interest @ BPLR+2% i.e. 14.25% with monthly rests. The loan was repayable in 84 months with the moratorium period of 12 months. In addition to the said term loan, the bank also sanctioned a cash credit facility of Rs.175 lacs which was to carry interest @ BPLR+1.50% i.e. 13.75% per annum. The details of the loan sanctioned read thus:- Rupee Term Loan-I : Rs.304.87 lacs (Run down balance) Rupee Term Loan-II : Rs.133.19 lacs (Run down balance) Rupee Term Loan-III : Rs.185.12 lacs (Run down balance) Rupee Term Loan-IV : Rs.447.37 lacs (Run down balance) Rupee Term Loan-V : Rs.899.80 lacs (Run down balance) Rupee Term Loan-VI : Rs.400.00 lakhs for purchase of machinery 4. Petitioner No. 2 executed a Deed of Guarantee in favour of the bank and also mortgaged his residential property. It is pleaded that the principal borrower hospital had grown up to a 100-bed hospital and it was providing services under almost 20 medical departments and had acquired state-of-the-art equipment and providing medical care to 400-500 patients in the OPD alone. However, the loan could not be repaid in time and the company fell in arrears and it was agreed to restructure the amount, which was approved on 30.05.2011. The bank, however, initiated the process under the SARFAESI Act and issued demand notice dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure P-3) under Section 13(2) of the said Act claiming an amount of Rs.22,84,74,378.43/- as on 26.04.2011. The objections were filed on 20.05.2011 to the bank (Annexure P-4). It was pleaded that no response was received on the said objections and negotiations were carried on and the petitioner offered to sell property bearing Nos. 200-201 at Vivek Enclave in Jalandhar in the name of the one of the guarantors-mortgagers Mrs. Kulwinder Kaur, wife of petitioner No. 2. Vide letter dated 25/29.06.2011 (Annexure P-5), permission was granted for sale of the property subject to the deposit of the sale proceeds with the bank. In pursuance of the said permission, Mrs. Kulvinder Kaur executed an agreement (Annexure P-6) admitting to the terms and conditions to sell the mortgaged plots and submitting the proceeds to the bank. Vide letter dated 25/29.06.2011 (Annexure P-5), permission was granted for sale of the property subject to the deposit of the sale proceeds with the bank. In pursuance of the said permission, Mrs. Kulvinder Kaur executed an agreement (Annexure P-6) admitting to the terms and conditions to sell the mortgaged plots and submitting the proceeds to the bank. In the meantime, the bank had issued a letter dated 13.06.2011 intimating its intention to declare petitioner No. 1 as a wilful defaulter. The company wrote to the bank on 30.06.2011 (Annexure P-7) protesting against the said action and also requested the bank to reconsider the matter and pointed out that sanction had been granted for sale of two properties. On 07.07.2011 (Annexure P-8), another letter requesting for restructuring was submitted to the bank and it was reiterated that the proceeds from the sale of the properties would be deposited directly with the bank and a further sum of Rs.1 crore would be deposited on 31.12.2011. Request was made for re-scheduling of the rate of interest and that penal and overdue interest be waived. The bank, without any warning, published a possession notice under Sections 13(4) and 13(12) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (in short the Securitisation Rules) dated 06.12.2011 on 08.12.2011 (Annexure P-9) mentioning six properties pertaining to the hospital in the said notice. The petitioner-company wrote to the bank on 15.12.2011 reiterating its offer of settling the accounts but the bank issued another possession notice dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure P-11) with regard to the property Nos. 2, 3 and 4 mentioned in the sale notice. The notice included the personal property of petitioner No. 2 as well. Thereafter, sale notice was published on 17.01.2012 (Annexure P-12) wherein, the bank proposed to sell the assets of the company as well as the petitioner No. 2 and other mortgagers. Representatives of the company sought to meet the Manager of respondent No. 1 on 24.01.2012 but the bank Manager refused to meet them and even a cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- was offered, however, no response was received. 5. Representatives of the company sought to meet the Manager of respondent No. 1 on 24.01.2012 but the bank Manager refused to meet them and even a cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- was offered, however, no response was received. 5. The petitioners challenged the action of the bank by way of filing an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide S.A. No. 139 of 2012 and the company on 16.02.2012 (Annexure P-14) was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 crore before 17.02.2012 along with sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards expenses incurred on publication and sale. The company was further directed to deposit various amounts with the bank and submit a proposal for settlement on 17.02.2012 and the bank was directed to decide the proposal within 15 days. The said amount was deposited on 17.02.2012 and in pursuance to the directions, proposal was submitted to the bank offering to pay various amounts. Vide letter dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure P-17), the proposal was rejected. S.A. No. 139 of 2012 was listed on 21.03.2012 (Annexure P-18) and was dismissed on account of the fact that the petitioners had not complied with the order as the counsel for the bank pointed out that there were directions to deposit Rs.2 crores which had not been complied with. The impugned notice dated 23.03.2012 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued which was published in the newspapers on 24.03.2012 and it was proposed to sell the property by 31.03.2012 (i.e. within a period of 7 days as opposed to 30 days as provided under the Securitisation Rules). An application bearing M.A. No. 24 of 2012 in S.A. No. 139 of 2012 was filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking recalling of order dated 21.03.2012, which was dismissed on 30.03.2012 (Annexure P-19). The bank then sold the property to respondent No. 2 on 31.03.2012 for a sum of Rs.23 crores and it was alleged that it was below the actual cost and the plant and machinery/equipment had also been sold which had not been valued by the bank as per its rejection letter dated 20.03.2012. 6. The petitioners filed CWP No. 6349 of 2012, M/s. IAA Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Authorized Officer, UCO Bank in this Court and the company was directed on 03.04.2012 (Annexure P-20) to deposit a sum of Rs.23 crores with the Authorized Officer to establish its bona fides. 6. The petitioners filed CWP No. 6349 of 2012, M/s. IAA Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Authorized Officer, UCO Bank in this Court and the company was directed on 03.04.2012 (Annexure P-20) to deposit a sum of Rs.23 crores with the Authorized Officer to establish its bona fides. The amount could not be deposited and the writ petition was withdrawn on 19.04.2012 (Annexure P-21). The petitioners filed S.A. 179 of 2012 and one of the other guarantors filed S.A. No. 178 of 2012 challenging the sale notice and all the S.As. were decided by common order dated 12.07.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby, the said applications were dismissed. The writ petitioner in CWP No. 15248 of 2012, Dr. Nitin Aggarwal, filed S.A. No. 185 of 2012 challenging the same auction on the ground that adequate publicity had not been given and he was ready and willing to give a higher bid, which was also dismissed. The possession was handed over to the auction purchaser on 25.04.2012. I.A. No. 239 of 2012 had been filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6-M/s. Kare Partners in S.A. No. 179 of 2012 wherein, the said respondents had offered to pay a sum equivalent to Rs.25.30 crores to liquidate the outstanding dues to the bank. The said application was also rejected vide the impugned order. Punjab National Bank, one of the other lenders had filed I.A. No. 246 of 2012 stating that machinery and equipment hypothecated had illegally been handed over to the auction purchaser. The petitioners also had filed I.A. No. 273 of 2012 raising objections to the Panchnama and so called inventory whereby, the management of the hospital had also been sold which was not envisaged under the notice and the SARFAESI Act did not envisage the sale of the management. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the bank had not followed the due procedure and the property had been sold at a much lower price than the actual price. Another notice had been issued to sell the remaining mortgaged assets which included the personal house of petitioner No. 2 as well as of the other guarantors and mortgagers. The said notice was challenged by way of S.A. No. 201 of 2012 and interim protection was granted on 21.05.2012. Another notice had been issued to sell the remaining mortgaged assets which included the personal house of petitioner No. 2 as well as of the other guarantors and mortgagers. The said notice was challenged by way of S.A. No. 201 of 2012 and interim protection was granted on 21.05.2012. In CWP No. 15256 of 2012, this Court was pleased to direct the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.26 crores on 09.08.2012 and photocopy of the certified cheque dated 29.08.2012 of US $46,70,000 equivalent to Rs.26,00,65,715/- had been drawn in favour of the Registrar of this Court was placed on record. The said draft, which was presented by way of C.M. No. 12310 of 2012 by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, was returned on 04.09.2012 with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Accordingly, it was pleaded that as per Rules 8 and 9 of the Securitisation Rules, there was a violation and 30 days notice, as required, had not been served since the notice in question was published on 24.03.2012 and the sale was conducted on 31.03.2012. The Tribunal had adversely commented against the bank and the auction purchaser but in spite of that, had denied the relief and possession had been handed over to respondent No. 2 of those assets and personal articles of the company which were not even hypothecated in its favour. 7. The respondent-bank, in its written statement, took the plea that an alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act was available and placed reliance upon various judgments. The conduct of the petitioners was highlighted that they had defaulted in maintaining financial discipline from the very beginning and the bank had given a long rope to regularize their accounts but they had failed to maintain financial discipline. Even the interest had not been serviced by the petitioners and their account was declared a non performing asset (NPA). The other hospital at Khanna Mediciti Hospitals account in which petitioner No. 2 was a Director had been a declared fraud by the Vigilance Department of the Head Office, Kolkata vide letter dated 30.08.2011 and huge amount financed by the respondent-bank to their concern M/s. Mediciti Hospital was siphoned off and misappropriated and even a complaint had been made to the CBI for the registration of the FIR. Various letters of the bank were attached as Annexures R-1 to R-14 in this context. The bank had agreed to re-structure the amount vide letter dated 30.05.2011 but the petitioners failed to pay the undertaken amount in June, 2011 amounting to Rs.29,52,000/- thereby reducing the outstanding balance from Rs.9,36,25,000/- to Rs.9,06,73,000/- and servicing the interest from months July, 2011 onwards to December, 2011. The petitioners were required to pay equated monthly installments as per the schedule beginning from January, 2012, however, they had failed to adhere to the undertaken terms and accordingly, the provisions of the SARFAESI Act were invoked. Vide letter dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure P-8), an undertaking was given that approximately Rs.1 crore by sale of two properties would be deposited in the cash credit account and further Rs.1 crore would be deposited in the term loan account on 31.12.2011 but this was also not complied with. The sale certificates dated 25.04.2012 (Annexure R-1/15 and 16) and 26.04.2012 (Annexure R-1/17) had been issued to the auction purchasers i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 regarding properties at Sr. Nos. 1, 6 and 7 of sale notice (Annexure P-2) and possession had been handed over to the auction purchasers. Reference was made to the earlier CWP No. 6349 of 2012 wherein, the sale notice had already been challenged and on 03.04.2012, an undertaking had been given to deposit Rs.23 crores by 17.04.2012 but the commitment had not been honoured and the writ petition was dismissed on 19.04.2012 by withdrawing the same with liberty to approach any other Authority in accordance with law. The petitioners had been misusing the process of law and filing false and frivolous litigation. Instances were given of S.A. No. 139 of 2012 dismissed on 21.03.2012, M.A. No. 24 of 2012 dismissed on 30.03.2012, CWP No. 6349 of 2012 dismissed on 19.04.2012, S.A. No. 179 of 2012 dismissed on 12.07.2012 and CWP No. 15256 of 2012 dismissed as withdrawn on 04.09.2012. It was pleaded that the cause of action was same i.e. sale notice dated 23.03.2012. 8. On merits, it was submitted that earlier also, sale notice dated 16.01.2012 was issued by fixing the date of opening of tenders on 18.02.2012 and the sale notice of 30 days was issued to the petitioners on 01.12.2011 (Annexure R-1/18) calling upon the petitioners to pay the dues and, therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal had passed remarks against the bank merely on the perusal of the complaint dated 16.09.2011 and that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were third parties and had been impleaded showing them to be interested parties in purchasing the mortgaged hospital property which had already been sold and possession handed over. The bank had classified the accounts of the petitioners in the present case as NPA when on repeated requests, it failed to yield the results. The demand notice dated 13.05.2011 claiming sum of Rs.22,84,74,378.43/- had been issued and the petitioners at each and every stage had failed to abide by their undertakings and the bank had been compelled to proceed further to recover the outstanding debts. It was pleaded that the Tribunal had, vide its order dated 16.02.2012 directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.2 crores within 30 days from 17.02.2012 and Rs.2 crores within next 30 days i.e. to deposit total of Rs.4 crores within 60 days from 17.02.2012 against Rs.26,31,35,198/- including interest in the accounts up to 15.02.2012, which was not complied with. On account of the failure to deposit the amount of Rs.4 crores, the bank had rejected the proposal vide letter dated 20.03.2012. The petitioners were asked to improve upon their offer and deposit the amount but it failed to deposit and did not even appear on the date fixed i.e. on 21.03.2012 and the S.A. No. 139 of 2012 was dismissed in such circumstances. The property of the hospital had been sold to respondent No. 2 for Rs.23.06 crores after fixing the reserve price on the basis of valuation from approved valuer and consultation with secured creditor. The valuation was made on 19.03.2012 and it was reflected in the sale notice. The petitioners had liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the earlier decision but filed another S.A. No. 179 of 2012, which was repetition of facts. The orders passed by the DRT were justified. An undertaking had been given to deposit Rs.26 crores before the Court but in terms of the undertaking dated 09.08.2012, they failed to produce the demand draft and filed an application moved by a third party i.e. respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and on objection being raised by counsel for the bank, CWP No. 15256 of 2012 was withdrawn. An undertaking had been given to deposit Rs.26 crores before the Court but in terms of the undertaking dated 09.08.2012, they failed to produce the demand draft and filed an application moved by a third party i.e. respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and on objection being raised by counsel for the bank, CWP No. 15256 of 2012 was withdrawn. Accordingly, the action of the bank was justified and it was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 9. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3-auction purchasers also in their written statement, pleaded that an appeal lay to the Appellate Tribunal subject to deposit of 25% of the debt referred and the alternate remedy was not exhausted and, therefore, the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India should not be invoked. Reference was made to the directions issued by this Court on 03.04.2012 to deposit Rs.23 crores with the respondent-bank on 17.04.2012 and it was submitted that since the amount had not been deposited, the sale certificates had been issued and the petitioners were estopped to raise the same issue time and again as the writ petition had been withdrawn with liberty to approach the right Authority. It was pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration and were physically in possession and the answering respondents were paying their Doctors their respective salaries in order to retain them in the service of the hospital and in the best interest of the patients and have updated the administration and private rooms and spent Rs.17,00,000/- on the same and also purchased a ventilator for the ICU for Rs.15,00,000/- and invested an amount of Rs.12.59 crores and the clock at this belated stage could not be reversed. Respondent No. 4 chose not to file written statement and did not come forward with any defence. 10. In the rejoinder to the written statement, the contents of the writ petition were reiterated and it was submitted that on account of default of M/s. Mediciti Hospital Pvt. Ltd. at Khanna, which had a separate loan account, the petitioners had been prejudiced. CWP No. 6349 of 2012 was withdrawn on 19.04.2012 with liberty to file the S.A. and the present writ petition was maintainable. The petitioners had produced a cheque of Rs.26 crores before this Court on 10.12.2012 but this Court had directed to get a draft. CWP No. 6349 of 2012 was withdrawn on 19.04.2012 with liberty to file the S.A. and the present writ petition was maintainable. The petitioners had produced a cheque of Rs.26 crores before this Court on 10.12.2012 but this Court had directed to get a draft. Letter dated 01.12.2011 (Annexure R-1/18) was denied on the ground that it did not have any reference number and had only been issued to two Directors and two guarantors and not to all affected parties. It included other Directors and guarantors including petitioner No. 2. The bank had not decided the proposal within a period of 15 days as directed and due to which the further amount was not deposited. Reliance was placed upon the observations of the Tribunal to submit that the auction of the bank was mala fide. 11. Similarly, rejoinder was filed to the written statement filed by the auction purchaser and it was submitted that the entire process of the sale was void ab initio and no right could accrue in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the Court had the power to turn the clock back and set aside the sale which was illegal and it was submitted that respondent No. 2 had connived with the officials of respondent No. 1 in purchasing the property in pursuance of the illegal sale notice and accordingly, it was submitted that the sale was liable to be set aside. 12. Counsel for the petitioner had been at pains to submit that as per Rule 8(6) and Rule 9 of the Securitisation Rules, 30 days-notice was mandatory requirement and the sale notice was dated 23.03.2012 and the sale was to take place on 31.03.2012 and thus, there was violation of the mandatory provisions. It was further submitted that the first notice dated 16.01.2012 (Annexure P-12) was only of 4 properties and property Nos. 5 to 7 in the sale notice (Annexure P-2) were being sold for the first time whereas the plant and machinery at clause No. 7 was part of the hospital buildings. It was next contended that no valuation was got done which would be clear from the letter dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure P-17) and there was contradiction since there was mention of valuation report dated 19.03.2012 in the notice (Annexure P-2). It was next contended that no valuation was got done which would be clear from the letter dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure P-17) and there was contradiction since there was mention of valuation report dated 19.03.2012 in the notice (Annexure P-2). Reference was made to Rule 6(2) of the Securitisation Rules to urge that reserved price had to be mentioned and the time and place of the auction had to be specified. It was argued that Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act provided that the secured creditor may take recourse to recover his secured debt by taking possession of secured assets of the borrowers or to take over the management of the business of the borrowers under Sections 13(4)(a) and 13(4)(b) of the SARFAESI Act separately. The bank had admitted that it had sold only the secured assets and not the management, as replied in grounds (g) of its reply whereas the auction purchaser had admitted that the management had also been taken over since there were patients admitted and, therefore, the assets and responsibilities of the hospital had also been taken over. Notice dated 01.12.2012 (Annexure R-1/18) was violative of Section 13(4)(b) of the SARFAESI Act and Rule 6(2) and Rule 8(2) of the Securitisation Rules and could not be relied upon since it had not been sent to all the persons from whom the money was due. 13. Lastly, it was submitted that unsecured assets like the pharmacy/the ambulance had also been taken over by the bank and sale had been conducted in a hasty manner since petitioners had approached the Tribunal on 11.02.2012 and the Tribunal had given time to deposit Rs.4 crores for settling the dispute but the application was dismissed and the subsequent application for recalling was also dismissed. The sale certificate had been issued on 25.04.2012 which included the residential property and the movable property and Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act provided that the debtor should be given time to deposit the amount. Accordingly, an argument was raised that a discourse had been given by the Tribunal on the conduct of the bank and reference was made to letter dated 16.09.2011 but nothing had been granted and in such circumstances, the only inference which could be drawn was that the bank was mixed up with the auction purchaser. 14. Accordingly, an argument was raised that a discourse had been given by the Tribunal on the conduct of the bank and reference was made to letter dated 16.09.2011 but nothing had been granted and in such circumstances, the only inference which could be drawn was that the bank was mixed up with the auction purchaser. 14. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar and others, JT 2014 (3) SC 151; J. Rajiv Subramaniyan and another v. M/s. Pandiyas and others bearing Civil Appeal No. 3865 of 2014 decided on 14.03.2014 : (AIR 2014 SC 1710) and Vasu P. Shetty v. M/s. Hotel Vandana Palace and others (2014) 5 SCC 660 : (AIR 2014 SC 1947). 15. Senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, in his usual fair sense, submitted that though there is an alternate and efficacious remedy available under the Statute but there was no absolute bar as such whereby, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not examine the merits of the case and see whether any fraud was there or not and whether the order was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and if the petitioner-borrower was entitled to any relief in view of its conduct and its inability to pay the outstanding amount to the bank. It was submitted that the owner of the property has a right to save his property as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and an opportunity has to be given to produce a better claim for the purpose of self preservation of the property. It was argued that in the present case, sufficient opportunities had been given time and again to the petitioner-borrower to come forward with the said amount either by deposit of the amount himself or by arranging a buyer who would get the same amount or more which the auction purchaser had offered. Initially, the petitioner had also approached the Tribunal on 11.02.2012 in S.A. No. 139 of 2012 and the Tribunal had given time to deposit Rs.4 crores in two installments for settling the dispute within 60 days from 17.02.2012. Eventually, the application was dismissed on 21.03.2012 on account of non-compliance of the deposit of the first installment. Initially, the petitioner had also approached the Tribunal on 11.02.2012 in S.A. No. 139 of 2012 and the Tribunal had given time to deposit Rs.4 crores in two installments for settling the dispute within 60 days from 17.02.2012. Eventually, the application was dismissed on 21.03.2012 on account of non-compliance of the deposit of the first installment. Another application was filed for recalling of the said order and on 30.03.2012, the said application was dismissed. All these proceedings before the Tribunal took place before the auction on 31.03.2012 and even in the applications, time was sought only till 05.09.2012 but the payment had never been made. The sale certificates of the hospital had been issued on 25.04.2012 (Annexure R-1/15) and on 26.04.2012 (Annexure R-1/16, for movable property) and for the residential property on 26.04.2012 (Annexure R-1/17). Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act provided an opportunity to the borrower to tender its dues to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer and if the same was done, the secured asset was not to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor and no further step was to be taken for transfer or sale of secured asset. It was, thus, urged that sufficient compliance of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act was done. It was also pointed out that in the order of Tribunal whereby, comments had been made on the manner of the bank in proceeding to recover the due debt and reference was made to letter dated 16.02.2011 was due to mixing up of the facts pertaining to the borrower and the auction purchaser. That on 03.04.2012, the borrower had approached this Court in CWP No. 6349 of 2012 and the sale was not to be confirmed subject to the deposit of Rs.23 crores. The said offer was withdrawn on 19.04.2012 with liberty to approach any other authority in accordance with law. Then, on 09.08.2012, the petitioners had offered to produce a demand draft in the sum of Rs.26 crores, which was the outstanding amount in CWP No. 15256 of 2012, which was then withdrawn on 04.09.2012 with liberty to file a fresh petition by furnishing better particulars (Annexure R-1/21). Then, on 09.08.2012, the petitioners had offered to produce a demand draft in the sum of Rs.26 crores, which was the outstanding amount in CWP No. 15256 of 2012, which was then withdrawn on 04.09.2012 with liberty to file a fresh petition by furnishing better particulars (Annexure R-1/21). On 30.08.2013, a direction had been issued to produce the demand draft in the sum of Rs.30 crores in favour of the Registrar (General) of this Court in the present bunch of petitions, which offer again stood withdrawn on 13.09.2013. Accordingly, it was submitted that in spite of other persons also trying to intervene, there was no better result yielded over the period of two years. It was submitted that in such circumstances, this Court would not exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 ; Titaghur Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orrisa, 1983 (2) SCC 433 : ( AIR 1983 SC 603 ) and recent judgment of the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 : ( AIR 2010 SC 3413 ). Reference was made to Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, (2004) 4 SCC 311 : (AIR 2004 SC 2377), Transcore v. Union of India and another, (2008) 1 SCC 125 : ( AIR 2007 SC 712 ) and General Manager, Sh. Siddheshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another v. Ikbal and others, 2013 (10) SCC 83 . 16. The primary questions that arise for consideration before this Court is whether the action of the bank in taking over the property and selling the same was violative of the statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the sale was liable to be set aside keeping in mind the fact that the mandatory period of 30 days had not expired when the auction had taken place. Secondly, that in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, whether in the facts and circumstances, the writ petitioners are entitled to have their writ petition entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Secondly, that in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, whether in the facts and circumstances, the writ petitioners are entitled to have their writ petition entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Necessarily, reference will have to be made to Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act which provides that any security interest created in favour of a secured creditor may be enforced without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The relevant provisions read thus:- 13. Enforcement of security interest.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4). (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower. (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower. (3A) If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower: PROVIDED that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District Judge under section 17A. (4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely: (a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; (b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset: PROVIDED that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt: PROVIDED FURTHER that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt. (c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; (d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. 13(5) to 13(7) xxx xxx xxx (8) If the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him are tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the secured asset shall not be sold or transferred by the secured creditor, and no further step shall be taken by him for transfer or sale of that secured asset. 18. The secured creditor has to issue a notice in writing to the borrower whose account has become NPA and who had made a default in repayment of the secured debt to discharge his full liability within 60 days from the date of notice, failing which, the secured creditor would be entitled to exercise all or any of his right under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Under Section 13(3), the notice had to contain the details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor. The borrower has a right under Section 13(3-A) to make a representation or raise any objections which are required to be decided and communicated within one week of the receipt of the representations and the reasons for non-acceptance. On account of failure to discharge the liability, the secured creditor could take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt provided under Sections 13(4)(a) to 13(4)(d) of the SARFAESI Act whereby, possession of the secured asset could be taken and management of the business also could be taken over and another person could be appointed to manage the secured assets and demand could be made against any person who had acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower to pay the secured debt. Section 13 (8) further provides that the dues along with costs and charges and expenses incurred can be tendered to the secured creditor before the date fixed for sale or transfer and the secured asset is not to be sold or transferred and no further steps would be taken if the amount is transferred. 19. Examining the issue further, inevitably, reference is made to Securitisation Rules. The relevant Rules read thus:- 3. Demand notice.(1) The service of demand notice as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Ordinance shall be made by delivering or transmitting at the place where the borrower or his agent, empowered to accept the notice or documents on behalf of the borrower, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, by registered post with acknowledgment due, addressed to the borrower or his agent empowered to accept the service or by Speed Post or by courier or by any other means of transmission of documents like fax message or electronic mail service: PROVIDED that where authorised officer has reason to believe that the borrower or his agent is avoiding the service of the notice or that for any other reason, the service cannot be made as aforesaid, the service shall be effected by affixing a copy of the demand notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house or building in which the borrower or his agent ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and also by publishing the contents of the demand notice in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language, having sufficient circulation in that locality. (2) Where the borrower is a body corporate, the demand notice shall be served on the registered office or any of the branches of such body corporate as specified under sub-rule (1). (3) Any other notice in writing to be served on the borrower or his agent by authorised officer, shall be served in the same manner as provided in this rule. (4) Where there are more than one borrower, the demand notice shall be served on each borrower. (3) Any other notice in writing to be served on the borrower or his agent by authorised officer, shall be served in the same manner as provided in this rule. (4) Where there are more than one borrower, the demand notice shall be served on each borrower. [3-A. Reply to representation of the borrower.(a) After issue of demand notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13, if the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection to the notice, the Authorized Officer shall consider such representation or objection and examine whether the same is acceptable or tenable. (b) If on examining the representation made or objection raised by the borrower, the secured creditor is satisfied that there is a need to make any changes or modifications in the demand notice, he shall modify the notice accordingly and serve a revised notice or pass such other suitable orders as deemed necessary, within seven days from the date of receipt of the representation or objection. (c) If on examining the representation made or objection raised, the Authorised Officer comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such representation or objection, the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection, to the borrower. 4. Procedure after issue of notice. If the amount mentioned in the demand notice is not paid within the time specified therein, the authorised officer shall proceed to realise the amount by adopting any one or more of the measures specified in sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Ordinance for taking possession of movable property, namely: (1) Where the possession of the secured assets to be taken by the secured creditor are movable property in possession of the borrower, the authorised officer shall take possession of such movable property in the presence of two witnesses after a Panchnama drawn and signed by the witnesses as nearly as possible in Appendix I to these rules. (2) After taking possession under sub-rule (1) above, the authorised officer shall make or cause to be made an inventory of the property as nearly as possible in the form given in Appendix-II to these rules and deliver or cause to be delivered, a copy of such inventory to the borrower or to any person entitled to receive on behalf of borrower. (3) The authorised officer shall keep the property taken possession under sub-rule (1) either in his own custody or in the custody of any person authorised 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: PROVIDED that if such property is subject to speedy or natural decay, or the expense of keeping such property in custody is likely to exceed its value, the authorised officer may sell it at once. (4) The authorised 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) In case any secured asset is: (a) a debt not secured by negotiable instrument; or (b) a share in a body corporate; (c) other movable property not in the possession of the borrower except the property deposited in or in the custody of any court or any like authority, the authorised officer shall obtain possession or recover the debt by service of notice as under: (i) in the case of a debt, prohibiting the borrower from recovering the debt or any interest thereon and the debtor from making payment thereof and directing the debtor to make such payment to the authorised officer; or (ii) in the case of the shares in a body corporate, directing the borrower to transfer the same to the secured creditor and also the body corporate from not transferring such shares in favour of any person other than the secured creditor. A copy of the notice so sent may be endorsed to the concerned body corporates Registrar to the issue or share transfer agents, if any; (iii) in the case of other movable property (except as aforesaid), calling upon the borrowers and the person in possession to hand over the same to the authorised officer and the authorised officer shall take custody of such movable property in the same manner as provided in sub-rules (1) to (3) above; (iv) movable secured assets other than those covered in this rule shall be taken possession of by the authorised officer by taking possession of the documents evidencing title to such secured assets. 5. Valuation of movable secured assets. 5. Valuation of movable secured assets. After taking possession under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 and in any case before sale, the authorised officer shall obtain the estimated value of the movable secured assets and thereafter, if considered necessary, fix in consultation with the secured creditor, the reserve price of the assets to be sold in realisation of the dues of the secured creditor. 6. Sale of movable secured assets (1) The authorised officer may sell the movable secured assets taken possession under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 in one or more lots by adopting any of the following methods to secure maximum sale price for the assets, to be so sold (a) obtaining quotations from parties dealing in the secured assets or otherwise interested in buying such assets; or (b) inviting tenders from the public ; or (c) holding public auction; or (d) by private treaty. (2) The authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the movable secured assets, under sub-rule (1): PROVIDED that if the sale of such secured assets 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 that locality by setting out the terms of sale, which may include, (a) details about the borrower and the secured creditor; (b) description of movable secured assets to be sold with identification marks or numbers, if any, on them; (c) reserve price, if any, and the time and manner of payment; (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 authorised officer considers it material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of movable secured assets. (3) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing. 7. (3) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing. 7. Issue of certificate of sale (1) Where movable secured assets is sold, sale price of each lot shall be paid as per the terms of the public notice or on the terms as may be settled between the parties, as the case may be and in the event of default of payment, the movable secured assets shall be liable to be ordered for sale again. (2) On payment of sale price, the authorised officer shall issue a certificate of sale in the prescribed form as given in Appendix III to these rules specifying the movable secured assets sold, price paid and the name of the purchaser and thereafter the sale shall become absolute. The certificate of sale so issued shall be prima facie evidence of title of the purchaser. (3) Where the movable secured assets are those referred in sub-clauses (iii) to (v) of clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Ordinance, the provisions contained in these rules and Rule 7 dealing with the sale of movable secured assets shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such assets. 8. Sale of immovable secured assets.(1) Where the secured asset is an immovable property, the authorised 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 in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised officer. (3) In the event of possession of immovable property is actually taken by the authorised officer, such property shall be kept in his own custody or in the custody of any person authorised 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 authorised 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 authorised 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 authorised 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 authorised 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 authorised 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 authorised 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. 9. (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. 9. Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.(1) No sale of immovable property under these rules shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) or notice of sale has been served to the borrower. (2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor: PROVIDED that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9: PROVIDED FURTHER that if the authorised officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price. (3) 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 authorised officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be sold again. (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the parties. (5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. (6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the form given in Appendix-V to these rules. (6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the form given in Appendix-V to these rules. (7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances, the authorised officer may, if he thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and interest as may be determined by him. (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorised officer may issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him and take steps to make the payment accordingly. (9) The authorised officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-rule (7) above. (10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not. 20. As per Rule 3 of the Securitisation Rules, the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is to be made upon the borrower or his agent who had the power to accept the notice and upon raising of any objection, the authorized officer shall examine the representation under Rule 3A of the Rules and modify the notice and serve a revised notice or pass such suitable orders as he may deem necessary within one week from the receipt of such representation and the said reasons are to be communicated to the borrower. Rule 4 empowers the secured creditor to take possession of movable property and get them valued under Rule 5 whereas, the sale is to be carried out under Rule 6. Under Rule 8, the immovable properties-possession can be taken by delivering a possession notice as per Appendix IV and the said notice is to be affixed on the outer door or such conspicuous place of the property. Under Rule 8, the immovable properties-possession can be taken by delivering a possession notice as per Appendix IV and the said notice is to be affixed on the outer door or such conspicuous place of the property. Rule 8(2) postulates that the possession notice is to be published in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular and another having sufficient circulation in the locality. Rule 8 (3) provides that in the event of possession of immovable property is actually taken by the authorised officer, such property shall be kept in his own custody or in the custody of the any person authorised or appointed by him, who shall take as much care of the property in his custody as an owner of ordinary prudence would and thus, the said Authorized Officer becomes a Trustee of the property in his hands. 21. Under Rule 9, no sale of immovable property is to take place before the expiry of 30 days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in the newspapers or notice of the sale has been served to the borrower. The sale is liable to be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorized officer and subject to the confirmation by the secured creditor and the sale price is not to be less than the reserve price specified under Rule 9(5). The authorized officer is to deliver the property to the purchaser free from incumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money and the certificate of sale is to be issued under Rule 9(10). 22. Perusal of the impugned order dated 12.07.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the DRT would go on to show that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed I.A. No. 239 of 2012 taking the plea that they had entered into a Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) on 14.04.2012 whereby, they had offered to buy the entire stake of the petitioners for a sum of Rs.35 crores, which would have been sufficient to discharge the entire debts of the respondent-bank amounting to Rs.26 crores. 5 and 6 filed I.A. No. 239 of 2012 taking the plea that they had entered into a Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) on 14.04.2012 whereby, they had offered to buy the entire stake of the petitioners for a sum of Rs.35 crores, which would have been sufficient to discharge the entire debts of the respondent-bank amounting to Rs.26 crores. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the said MOU had also been placed before this Court in CWP No. 6349 of 2012 when the writ petition was dismissed on 19.04.2012 and, therefore, they were treated as mouth pieces of the borrowers and had no locus standi to be impleaded as necessary party. 23. Similarly, I.A. No. 246 of 2012 of Punjab National Bank who had also granted credit facilities for purchase of machinery, which was hypothecated with them was dismissed on the ground that the bank had not taken any proceedings for the recovery of the said amount and the application had been filed at the eleventh hour on 27.04.2012 and earlier proceedings had also been dismissed. I.A. No. 273 of 2012, filed by the petitioner, which were objections to the possession memo and the inventory prepared by the respondent-bank was also rejected and the case of the petitioners that the management had been taken over was rejected by holding that the proceedings had been duly signed by two independent witnesses. The main S.A. No. 179 of 2012 which was against the sale notice along with one S.A. No. 178 of 2012 filed by the brother of petitioner No. 2 which also sought to highlight the discrepancies regarding the violation of Rule 9(1) of the Securitisation Rules and the non-compliance of Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act or the preparation of the Panchnama and preparing the inventory were rejected solely on the ground that earlier the petitioners had filed S.A. No. 139 of 2012 where they had been directed to deposit Rs.4 crores within 60 days in two installments and they had not complied with the said order. This application was dismissed on 21.03.2012 for this reason and thereafter, the application for recalling was also dismissed on 30.03.2012. This application was dismissed on 21.03.2012 for this reason and thereafter, the application for recalling was also dismissed on 30.03.2012. Reliance has also been placed upon the orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 6349 of 2012 to hold that the petitioners had availed all remedies and instead of filing an appeal against the earlier dismissal, they had again sought to raise the same issues. It was, thus, held that the petitioners were only trying to delay and gain time. However, the Tribunal categorically noticed that there was haste in proceedings for handing over physical possession of the property to the auction purchaser knowing fully well that the matter was pending for final orders before the Court and pertains to a running hospital. The bank had received 25% but it did not wait for the verdict of the case in handing over the possession taken with the strength of the police force provided by the District Magistrate and now the auction purchases were pretending to be the bona fide purchasers though they were well aware of the pending litigation. However, even after recording such a finding, the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction solely on the ground that the properties had been sold and the sale certificate had been issued and possession had been delivered to the auction purchaser and accordingly, rejected both the S. As. of the petitioners and of petitioner in CWP No. 14741 of 2012. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read thus:- The swift invasion showing undue haste in proceedings for handing over physical possession of the properties to the auction purchaser knowing fully well that the matter for final order is pending before the Court, is not only suspicious but against the public interests and natural justice when the property is not a simple commercial establishment but a running hospital. Even the law pays a respect to these institutions of humanity. It is the place which has been declared silence zone as noise is banned there, the Bank without showing any respect and sanity to it when the patients are under treatment in the indoor and outdoor departments, invaded the hospital with the help of police after breaking open the administration block, personal rooms. Bank may try to shield its action under the provision of law but its greedy hand in glove officers forgot the law of natural justice. Bank may try to shield its action under the provision of law but its greedy hand in glove officers forgot the law of natural justice. Even otherwise no prudent person shall dare to disturb the injured and sick who are in pain. It clearly shows that the Bank Officers either in some external pressures or due to extraneous reasons, acted in haste. We could not understand that when the property had already been sold and 25% amount had already come into its hands, then why the Bank did not wait for the outcome of the last verdict in this case particularly when the property is not an ordinary properties but a running hospital. The action of the Bank in handing over the possession to the auction purchaser in this mode shows the diminishing moral values in the society and the greed of men to go up to any extent and is an abuse to the humanity. The Bank officers may have got pat from the seniors for their this act but they have done a shame to the mankind for such hasty action which is not appreciable in the society. So the Bank should take appropriate action against the concerned officers on the basis of its letter dt.16.09.2011 written by the Zonal Head to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi within 15 days from this order. The Bank who is boasting to prepare inventory and panchnama in accordance with law for all items lying in the premises at the time of taking possession fails to convince me that how they can make an inventory of personal belongings of the patients lying in the premises at the time of taking possession. The patients and their belongings and medicines are not commodities and if the inventory of the bank is so authentic then why other articles which were there at the time of taking possession have not been counted. Whether the values in the society has fallen up to such an extent that the patients have become commodities and can be taken over by someone to be handed over to the other. In a society where it has been taught to show respect and help to needy and sick, the Bank has committed a blunder in the hands of mighty/political/influential greedy commercial bosses while handing over the possession to the auction purchaser just for one reason. In a society where it has been taught to show respect and help to needy and sick, the Bank has committed a blunder in the hands of mighty/political/influential greedy commercial bosses while handing over the possession to the auction purchaser just for one reason. On the other hand, the Auction Purchaser who always wanted its properties in their hand at the earliest expecting the profits and to be benefited in this case, is writ large at its face who has crossed all limits and with his powers of rule and money has ashamed the humanity. The auction purchaser who pretending himself to be bona fide purchaser in fact knows not only each and every background and event of the case but a comfortable berth inside the bank. It shall also not to be ignored that the Auction Purchaser who was so keen for taking the possession of this hospital and such was the influence that the Bank has arranged the orders from the District Magistrate along with full police force to take possession of running hospital within 3-4 days, whereas there are number of cases pending before the same District Magistrate which are lingering on for permission for months together for providing assistance to the Banks. The case in hand proves how the noble profession has now become lucrative business where the doctors in collaboration with mighty and influential people are playing with the health of patients. This all dirty game again exposes the nexus of builders/developers with the rich and powerful people using the health service to grab money from the innocent sick patients who in belief to be cared and cured are in fact trapped in the net of these money generating shops. No doubt the Bank along with auction purchaser has shown haste but such few instances of technical irregularity cannot be allowed to throttle the justice and stop recovery of public money lent out. Since all the properties have already been sold and sale certificate have been issued and possession also stood delivered to the auction purchaser, after examining the averments made by the respective counsel of the parties and documents and evidence filed by them in support of their pleading, I have come to the conclusion that the action taken by the Bank is absolutely in accordance with law just and proper. 7. Accordingly this SA is dismissed. Any application pending stands disposed of. 8. 7. Accordingly this SA is dismissed. Any application pending stands disposed of. 8. A copy of this order be also placed in SA 178 of 2012. 9. Order dasti to all concerned parties. 10. File be consigned to record. 24. The facts summarized above would demonstrate that the bank has failed to take into account the constitutional right of the borrowers protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India which provides that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The officials of the bank have proceeded to recover the outstanding dues from the secured creditor and sell the property as if it belonged not to the borrower but to the bank and had violated the prescribed procedure. 25. The observations of the Apex Court in Ram Kishun and others v. State of Uttar Pardesh and others, 2012 (11) SCC 511 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2288 , Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 & 17) necessarily have to be kept in mind while dealing with the present case. It has been observed in the said case that though public money is to be recovered and that also expeditiously but the secured assets cannot be permitted to be disposed of in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner in flagrant violations of the statutory provisions by financial institutions and they cannot be permitted to behave like property dealers. A legal obligation exists upon them to get the maximum price and proper valuation has to be done and the intending buyers may not come forward in case such proper valuation is not made and failure on account would cause substantial injury to the borrower and guarantor that would amount to material irregularity and ultimately liable to vitiate the subsequent proceedings. The observations of the Apex Court read as under:- 13. Undoubtedly, public money should be recovered and recovery should be made expeditiously. But it does not mean that the financial institutions which are concerned only with the recovery of their loans, may be permitted to behave like property dealers and be permitted further to dispose of the secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions. 14. A right to hold property is a Constitutional right as well as a human right. 14. A right to hold property is a Constitutional right as well as a human right. A person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the provisions of a statute.(Vide Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1169) and State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, ( AIR 2011 SC 1989 )). Thus, the condition precedent for taking away someones property or disposing of the secured assets, is that the authority must ensure compliance with the statutory provisions. 15. In case the property is disposed of by private treaty without adopting any other mode provided under the statutory rules, etc. there may be a possibility of collusion/fraud and even when public auction is held, the possibility of collusion among the bidders cannot be ruled out. In State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal ( AIR 1972 SC 1816 ), this Court held that a highest bidder in public auction cannot have a right to get the property or any privilege, unless the authority confirms the auction-sale, being fully satisfied that the property has fetched the appropriate price and there has been no collusion between the bidders. 16. In Haryana financial Corpn. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills ( AIR 2002 SC 834 ), this Court considered this aspect and while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in SIPCOT v. Contromix (P) Ltd. Held that : (SIPCOT case, SCC p. 601, para 12) : ( AIR 1995 SC 1632 , Pp 1635-36, Para 12) 12. In the matter of sale of public property, the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold. This can be achieved only when there is maximum public participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer. 17. Therefore, it becomes a legal obligation on the part of the authority that property be sold in such a manner that it may fetch the best price. Thus essential ingredients of such sale remain a correct valuation report and fixing the reserve price. In case proper valuation has not been made and the reverse price is fixed taking into consideration the inaccurate valuation report, the intending buyers may not come forward treating the property as not worth purchase by them, as a moneyed person or a big businessman may not like to involve himself in small sales/deals. 18 and 19 xxx xxx xxx 20. 18 and 19 xxx xxx xxx 20. In Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., ( AIR 2004 SC 4299 ). This Court considered the scope of fixing the reserve price and placing reliance on its earlier judgment in Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., ( AIR 2000 SC 355 ), explained that reserve price limits the authority of the auctioneer. The concept of the reserve price is not synonymous with valuation of the property. These two terms operate in different spheres. An invitation to tender is not an offer. It is an attempt to ascertain whether an offer can be obtained with a margin. The valuation is a question of fact, it should be fixed on relevant material. The difference between the valuation and reserve price is that, fixation of an upset price may be an indication of the probable price which the property may fetch from the point of view of intending bidders. Fixation of the reserve price does not preclude the claimant from adducing proof that the land had been sold for a low price. 21. xxx xxx xxx 22. In view of the above, it is evident that there must be an application of mind by the authority concerned while approving/accepting the report of the approved valuer and fixing the reserve price, as the failure to do so may cause substantial injury to the borrower/guarantor and that would amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate the subsequent proceedings. 26. We elucidate the reasons for interference by this Court in the present proceedings which are numerous. One of the ground is that on 13.05.2011, the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioners and to the guarantors, who were 9 in number. Notice also gave the details of the properties as per Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. The outstandings, as noticed were Rs.22,84,74,378.43 due on 26.04.2011. Along with the notice the schedule of the properties in question in Schedule C which numbered as many as 11 was also mentioned. Out of these 11 properties, 6 pertained to the hospital building situated near the Octroi Post, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and owned by petitioner No. 2 and others. Properties No. 7 to 11 were owned by Jagir Singh, Satwant Singh, Kulwinder Kaur, Dr. Out of these 11 properties, 6 pertained to the hospital building situated near the Octroi Post, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and owned by petitioner No. 2 and others. Properties No. 7 to 11 were owned by Jagir Singh, Satwant Singh, Kulwinder Kaur, Dr. Baljit Kaur and Balbir Singh Sekhon respectively and are all situated at Ludhiana except property No. 9 which are situated at Jalandhar and Rampura Phool measuring 23 marlas, 43 square feet and consists of residential plot Nos. 200-201 and 5 kanals 6 marlas respectively. The petitioners objected to the notice on 20.05.2011 and sought permission to sell the properties at Sr. No. 9 at Jalandhar. There is no denying the fact that the permission was granted on 25/29.06.2011 (Annexure P-5) and an agreement was entered into (Annexure P-6) with Kulwinder Kaur, wife of petitioner No. 2 to sell the mortgaged plots and submit the proceeds to the bank. No action was thereafter taken to decide the objections or reject the representations whereas the bank had already put the petitioners in the list of willful defaulters on 13.06.2011 and thus, violated the provisions of Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act by not taking a call on the objections. 27. Thereafter, the possession notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 06/08.12.2011 showing that possession of the hospital building comprising of six properties near Octroi Post, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana had been taken over on 01.12.2011 in pursuance of the demand notice dated 13.05.2011. Thereafter, on 16.12.2011, possession of the residential house at Maharaj Nagar measuring 400 square yards, the residential house measuring 400 square yards situated at Sukhdev Nagar belonging to the brother of the petitioner No. 2 and plot at village Gill, Janta Nagar, Ludhiana was taken over and the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 21.12.2011 (Annexure P-11). It is pertinent to mention that two properties at Sr. No. 9 located at Jalanhdar being the plots, permission for which had been taken to sell and one residential plot measuring 5 kanals 6 marlas at Rampura Phul at Sr. No. 10 were never taken over by the said notice. On 16/17.01.2012 (Annexure P-12), the sale notice was issued, wherein, apart from the property of the petitioners, the property of Mediciti Hospital at Khanna was also sought to be sold (with which we are not concerned in the present litigation). No. 10 were never taken over by the said notice. On 16/17.01.2012 (Annexure P-12), the sale notice was issued, wherein, apart from the property of the petitioners, the property of Mediciti Hospital at Khanna was also sought to be sold (with which we are not concerned in the present litigation). It is important to notice that in the said sale notice, only the hospital property and the property at Maharaj Nagar, Sukhdev Nagar and village Gill as described above was intimated for sale and the recoverable amount as per the date of demand notice dated 13.05.2011 was Rs.22,84,74,378.43 and the sale price of the property was fixed at Rs.2,476 lacs for the hospital and Rs.148 lacs, Rs.76.87 lacs and Rs.25.75 lacs for the three residential properties, as referred above. The offers were invited by way of sealed cover which were to be received by 17.02.2012 and tenders were to be opened on 18.02.2012. It is undisputed that the petitioners had approached DRT in S.A. No. 139 of 2012 wherein, a day before the auction on 16.02.2012, the DRT permitted the Authorized Officer to accept the tenders but not to open the same till further orders in case the petitioners deposited Rs.1 crore before 11.00 a.m. on 17.02.2012 with the Authorized Officer. Further amount of Rs.1 lac towards expenditure was also to be deposited. Thus, Rs.2 crores were to be deposited within 30 days and another Rs.2 crores within 60 days from the said date and a proposal was to be submitted by the borrowers and the Authorized Officer was to decide the proposal within the next 15 days. In compliance with the said directions, only Rs.1 crore was deposited on 17.02.2012 and a proposal was given on 17.02.2012 whereby, a schedule of payment was indicated, which was rejected on 20.03.2012 on account of the absence of the valuation of the plant and machinery financed by the bank. That the bank also gave a proposal that the One Time Settlement-could be considered in both the accounts and the offer could be mentioned along with the audited balance-sheet. The relevant portion of the rejection letter dated 20.03.2012 reads thus:- Please refer to your compromise proposal in M/s. IAA Hospitals (P) Ltd., and M/s Mediciti Hospitals (P) Ltd., our Head Office has made the following observations: 1. The relevant portion of the rejection letter dated 20.03.2012 reads thus:- Please refer to your compromise proposal in M/s. IAA Hospitals (P) Ltd., and M/s Mediciti Hospitals (P) Ltd., our Head Office has made the following observations: 1. M/s IAA Hospitals (P) Ltd.: The offer amount of Rs.22.84 Crore is much below the distress of Rs.27.48 Crore of the landed properties under mortgage to our bank. Further you have not submitted audited Balance Sheet for the year ended March, 2011, in the absence of which the valuation of the plant and machinery financed by bank cannot be ascertained. In the absence of contravening the RBI norms your offer of compromise is not acceptable to the bank and you have to improve upon your offer and also submit the audited Balance Sheet for the year ended March, 2011 for our consideration. 2. M/s Medicifi Hospitals (P) Ltd.: You have already advised to deposit 25% of the offer amount of Rs.9.05 Crore to enable the bank to take up your compromise proposal for our consideration. In the absence of the same your offer of compromise is not acceptable to the bank. However, the bank may consider OTS in both a/c’s if you make deposits as directed by Honble DRT and improve your offer along with audited balance sheet for the year ended March, 2011 in the case of M/s, IAA Hospitals (P) Ltd. and deposit 25% as upfront against your OTS offer of Rs.9.05 Crore in the case of M/s. Mediciti Hospitals (P) Ltd. This is for your kind information. 28. However, the petitioners again did not comply with the deposit of another Rs.1 crore which was mandatory and did not appear on 21.03.2012 which led to the dismissal of S.A. No. 139 of 2012. Thereafter, two days later, the second sale notice dated 23.03.2012 (Annexure P-2) was published on 24.03.2012 whereby, apart from the hospital buildings, the three plots, which were the subject-matter of the earlier sale notice and the plot at village Rampura Phul which was mentioned at Sr. No. 10 of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the residential plots at Jalandhar which were at Sr. No. 9 thereof, were also subject-matter of the public notice for sale along with the plant and machinery and medical equipment financed by the bank in terms of alleged valuation report dated 19.03.2012. No. 10 of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the residential plots at Jalandhar which were at Sr. No. 9 thereof, were also subject-matter of the public notice for sale along with the plant and machinery and medical equipment financed by the bank in terms of alleged valuation report dated 19.03.2012. The offer was again to be made by way of sealed tender, which was to be opened before 30.03.2012. This was done on the basis of the demand notice dated 13.05.2011 and the date of possession apart from 01.12.2011 and 16.12.2011 for the properties earlier taken over was mentioned as 23.01.2012 and 24.01.2012 for the other two properties at Jalandhar and Rampura Phul. The sale price of all properties was drastically reduced as per the following table:- 29. Surprisingly, within a period of little over 2 months, the reserve price of the four properties which were subject-matter of auction dropped for which there appeared to be no justification. 30. The bank had itself noticed that in the absence of the valuation of the plant and machinery financed by the bank, the offer was not acceptable which had been made in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal, while rejecting the objections on 20.03.2012 (Annexure P-17). The notice dated 23.03.2012 refers to the valuation report dated 19.03.2012, which was in contradiction to the letter dated 20.03.2012 produced in the present proceedings. Further, the provisions of Rule 5 pertaining to fixation of valuation of movable and secured assets in consultation with the secured creditor for realization of the dues of the secured creditor were apparently missing in the present case. The petitioner had been agitating it by filing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal as regarding the inventory which was prepared and alleging that the movable property stood hypothecated to the Punjab National Bank who had filed I.A. No. 246 of 2012 which was rejected along with I.A. No. 273 of 2012 whereby, the objections to the possession memo had been taken and the inventory prepared. Similarly, as per the provisions of Rule 8(5) of Securitisation Rules, before effecting sale of the immovable property, the authorized officer was to obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and sell the whole or in part of such immovable secured asset by any of the following methods prescribed which included inviting tenders from the public. Under Rule 8(6) thereof, the authorized officer was to serve to the borrower a notice of 30 days for sale of the immovable secured assets under sub-rule 5. The notice was issued on 23/24.03.2012 and tenders were called to be opened on 30.03.2012, this violated the mandatory provisions. The basis for the bank to reduce the reserve price or get the valuation done is not discernible from the present paper-book and moreover, no justification has been given except to plead that the property could be sold in pursuance to the earlier sale notice. The public notice for sale was violative of mandatory provisions of Rule 9(1) as according to it, no sale of immovable property under these Rules could take place before the expiry of 30 days from the date of which the public notice of sale is published in the newspapers. 31. Furthermore, the petitioner, in M.A. No. 24 of 2012 (though wrongly mentioned as M.A. No. 24 of 2011 at certain places) in S.A. No. 139 of 2012 sought to bring this fact to the notice of the Tribunal but it appears that due to the non-compliance of earlier directions, the miscellaneous application was dismissed on 30.03.2012. In the meantime, the auction took place on 30.03.2012 and the petitioners approached this Court in CWP No. 6349 of 2012 and undertook to deposit a sum of Rs.23 crores on or before 17.04.2012 which was the auction amount. Liberty was granted to deposit the sum by 17.04.2012 and the sale was not to be confirmed in favour of any third party. However, on 19.04.2012, the petitioners withdrew the petition with liberty to approach any other Authority in accordance with law and thus, obviously failed to comply with the undertaking of payment. In our opinion, the said withdrawal would not be adjudication on merits of the case which would debar the petitioner from approaching this Court again. However, on 19.04.2012, the petitioners withdrew the petition with liberty to approach any other Authority in accordance with law and thus, obviously failed to comply with the undertaking of payment. In our opinion, the said withdrawal would not be adjudication on merits of the case which would debar the petitioner from approaching this Court again. The petitioner at that stage was agitating or putting forward the case that he was willing to get a better buyer which the petitioner has consistently failed to get. This has been repeatedly highlighted and stressed upon by learned counsel for the respondents. However, this may not be determinative factor in the facts and circumstances of the present case for want of adherence to various legal requirements under the SARFAESI Act and Securitisation Rules, as noticed hereinbefore. Still further, the earlier litigation in CWP No. 6349 of 2012, did not relate to the legality and propriety of the sale procedure which had been adopted by the bank. The prayer therein was only for setting aside of the sale notice dated 23.03.2012 as the order dated 12.07.2012 had not come with existence and would not affect the rights of the petitioners in the present writ petitions. The petitioner, after the petition was withdrawn, filed S.A. No. 179 of 2012 whereas his brother filed S.A. No.178 of 2012, challenging the procedure of auction notice on the grounds mentioned in the present writ petition. 32. Counsel for the respondent-bank, in fairness in his submissions, accepted that this Court is empowered to examine requirement of compliance of statutory rules and regulations but had failed to address this Court on the violation of the statutory provisions which are apparent as recorded here-in-before. Equally, the filing of CWP No. 15256 of 2012, and an offer to pay Rs.26 crores at one stage and on failure thereof, for which reason, the writ petition was withdrawn on 04.09.2012, would not take away the right to agitate their grievance in the present writ petition. The writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one by furnishing better particulars on the same cause of action by this Court. The order reads thus:-Learned counsel for the petitioners and the applicant state that they may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition and the application and be allowed to file fresh one by furnishing the better particulars on the same cause of action. The order reads thus:-Learned counsel for the petitioners and the applicant state that they may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition and the application and be allowed to file fresh one by furnishing the better particulars on the same cause of action. Allowed to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn. 33. Another factor, which cannot be lost sight of in the present facts and circumstances, would be that though the petitioners had failed to maintain fiscal discipline, as the bank had an amount of Rs.23 crores plus due and the banks right to sell the property cannot be disputed. But the procedure which is prescribed under the law keeping in view Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act whereunder, the secured creditor has been conferred right to enforce their security interest without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal cannot be blatantly violated. 34. This has been subject-matter of adjudication by the Apex Court in several recent judgments. In Ikbals case (supra), the Apex Court held that Rule 9(1) of Securitisation rules was mandatory. Examining the factual matrix therein, it was concluded that there was no compliance of the said provision as the auction notice was published on 18.12.2005 whereas the public auction was conducted on 11.01.2006 before the expiry of prescribed period of 30 days. However, delving into the factual background, as the borrower had waived his rights and not objected to the auction being held before the expiry of 30 days and had also given his consent that the balance sale price may be accepted from the auction purchaser, the Apex Court intervened and set aside the order of the Single Judge and the Division Bench whereby, the auction had been set aside. It was noticed that there was also a delay of 4 years and the writ petition was filed after the issuance of the sale certificate. The relevant observations in Ikbals case (supra) read thus:- 19. There is no doubt that Rule 9(1) is mandatory but this provision is definitely for the benefit of the borrower. Similarly, Rule 9(3) and Rule 9(4) are for the benefit of the secured creditor (or in any case for the benefit of the borrower). It is settled position in law that even if a provision is mandatory, it can always be waived by a party (or parties) for whose benefit such provision has been made. Similarly, Rule 9(3) and Rule 9(4) are for the benefit of the secured creditor (or in any case for the benefit of the borrower). It is settled position in law that even if a provision is mandatory, it can always be waived by a party (or parties) for whose benefit such provision has been made. The provision in Rule 9(1) being for the benefit of the borrower and the provisions contained in Rule 9(3) and Rule 9(4) being for the benefit of the secured creditor (or for that matter for the benefit of the borrower), the secured creditor and the borrower can lawfully waive their right. These provisions neither expressly nor contextually indicate otherwise. Obviously, the question whether there is waiver or not depends on facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. 35. There being no waiver of any such right in the present case and the borrowers have been agitating against the possession notice and the sale proceedings, right from the start when the first of the sale notices under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was published on 06/08.12.2011, no advantage accrues to the respondent-bank from this pronouncement. 36. In Mathews case (supra), it was held that a free hand is given to the secured creditor under Section 13(1) of the SARFAESI Act and the said creditor is a Trustee but cannot deal with the secured asset in any manner it likes and the same can be disposed of only in the manner prescribed under the SARFAESI Act. The borrowers right to retrieve his property or at least secure the process of sale of the secured asset and that the same gets the maximum benefit could not be allowed to be exploited under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It was held that Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) have to be read together and a clear 30 days- individual notice has to be given to the borrower and the use of the expression or in Rule 9(1) should be read as and as that alone would be in consonance with the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. It was held that Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) have to be read together and a clear 30 days- individual notice has to be given to the borrower and the use of the expression or in Rule 9(1) should be read as and as that alone would be in consonance with the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. According to the aforesaid judgment, the twin objective to be achieved by compliance with these rules was that the borrower should have 30 days-notice to enable him to retain his or her ownership of tendering the dues of the secured creditor before the said date and time. Secondly, the intending purchaser should know the nature of the property, the extent of liability pertaining to the property and any other incumbrance pertaining to the same to rule out the possibility of bidders later on, expressing ignorance about the facts connected with the asset in question. Accordingly, it was held that such wide powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily and whimsically to the utter disadvantage of the borrower who is placed in a vulnerable position. It was further clarified that any other earlier notice would be of no value to the financial institution. The relevant observations read thus:- 28. Once the said legal position is ascertained, the statutory prescription contained in Rules 8 and 9 have also got to be examined as the said rules prescribe as to the procedure to be followed by a SECURED CREDITOR while resorting to a sale after the issuance of the proceedings under Section 13(1) to (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Under Rule 9(1), it is prescribed that no sale of an immovable property under the rules should take place before the expiry of 30 days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in the newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 again states that the authorized officer should serve to the borrower a notice of 30 days for the sale of the immovable SECURED ASSETS. Reading sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 and sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 together, the service of individual notice to the borrower, specifying clear 30 days time gap for effecting any sale of immovable SECURED ASSET is a statutory mandate. Reading sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 and sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 together, the service of individual notice to the borrower, specifying clear 30 days time gap for effecting any sale of immovable SECURED ASSET is a statutory mandate. It is also stipulated that no sale should be effected before the expiry of 30 days-from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in the newspapers. Therefore, the requirement under Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) contemplates a clear 30 days-individual notice to the borrower and also a public notice by way of publication in the newspapers. In other words, while the publication in newspaper should provide for 30 days-clear notice, since Rule 9(1) also states that such notice of sale is to be in accordance with proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 8, 30 days clear notice to the borrower should also be ensured as stipulated under Rule 8(6) as well. Therefore, the use of the expression or-in Rule 9(1) should be read as and as that alone would be in consonance with Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. 29. xxx xxx xxx 30. Such a detailed procedure while resorting to a sale of an immovable SECURED ASSET is prescribed under Rules 8 and 9(1). In our considered opinion, it has got a twin objective to be achieved. In the first place, as already stated by us, by virtue of the stipulation contained in Section 13(8) read along with Rules 8(6) and 9(1), the owner/borrower should have clear notice of 30 days before the date and time when the sale or transfer of the SECURED ASSET would be made, as that alone would enable the owner/borrower to take all efforts to retain his or her ownership by tendering the dues of the SECURED CREDITOR before that date and time. Secondly, when such a SECURED ASSET of an immovable property is brought for sale, the intending purchasers should know the nature of the property, the extent of liability pertaining to the said property, any other encumbrances pertaining to the said property, the minimum price below which one cannot make a bid and the total liability of the borrower to the SECURED CREDITOR. Since, the proviso to sub-rule (6) also mentions that any other material aspect should also be made known when effecting the publication, it would only mean that the intending purchaser should have entire details about the property brought for sale in order to rule out any possibility of the bidders later on to express ignorance about the factors connected with the asset in question. Be that as it may, the paramount objective is to provide sufficient time and opportunity to the borrower to take all efforts to safeguard his right of ownership either by tendering the dues to the creditor before the date and time of the sale or transfer, or ensure that the SECURED ASSET derives the maximum price and no one is allowed to exploit the vulnerable situation in which the borrower is placed. 31. At this juncture, it will also be worthwhile to refer to Rules 8(1) to (3) and in particular sub-rule (3), in order to note the responsibility of the SECURED CREDITOR vis-a-vis the SECURED ASSET taken possession of. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, the prescribed manner in which the possession is to be taken by issuing the notice in the format in which such notice of possession is to be issued to the borrower is stipulated. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 again, it is stated as to how the SECURED CREDITOR should publish the notice of possession as prescribed under sub-rule (1) to be made in two leading newspapers, one of which should be in the vernacular language having sufficient circulation in the locality and also such publication should have been made seven days prior to the intention of taking possession. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 really casts much more onerous responsibility on the SECURED CREDITOR once possession is actually taken by its authorised officer. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, the property taken possession of by the SECURED CREDITOR should be kept in its custody or in the custody of a person authorized or appointed by it and it is stipulated that such person holding possession should take as much care of the property in its custody as a owner of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take care of such property. The underlining purport of such a requirement is to ensure that under no circumstances, the rights of the owner till such right is transferred in the manner known to law is infringed. Merely because the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules enable the SECURED CREDITOR to take possession of such an immovable property belonging to the owner and also empowers to deal with it by way of sale or transfer for the purpose of realizing the secured debt of the borrower, it does not mean that such wide power can be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically to the utter disadvantage of the borrower. 32 to 39. xxx xxx xxx 40. The above principles laid down by this Court also make it clear that though the recovery of public dues should be made expeditiously, it should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and that it should not frustrate a Constitutional Right, as well as the Human Right of a person to hold a property and that in the event of a fundamental procedural error occurred in a sale, the same can be set aside. 41 to 48. xxx xxx xxx 49. We, therefore, hold that unless and until a clear 30 days notice is given to the borrower, no sale or transfer can be resorted to by a SECURED CREDITOR. In the event of any such sale properly notified after giving 30 days clear notice to the borrower did not take place as scheduled for reasons which cannot be solely attributable to the borrower, the SECURED CREDITOR cannot effect the sale or transfer of the SECURED ASSET on any subsequent date by relying upon the notification issued earlier. In other words, once the sale does not take place pursuant to a notice issued under Rules 8 and 9, read along with Section 13(8) for which the entire blame cannot be thrown on the borrower, it is imperative that for effecting the sale, the procedure prescribed above will have to be followed afresh, as the notice issued earlier would lapse. In that respect, the only other provision to be noted is sub-rule (8) of Rule 8 as per which sale by any method other than public auction or public tender can be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing. In that respect, the only other provision to be noted is sub-rule (8) of Rule 8 as per which sale by any method other than public auction or public tender can be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing. As far as sub-rule (8) is concerned, the parties referred to can only relate to the SECURED CREDITOR and the borrower. It is therefore, imperative that for the sale to be effected under Section 13(8), the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 read along with 9(1) has to be necessarily followed, inasmuch as that is the prescription of the law for effecting the sale as has been explained in detail by us in the earlier paragraphs by referring to Sections 13(1), 13(8) and 37, read along with Section 29 and Rule 15. In our considered view any other construction will be doing violence to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, in particular Section 13(1) and (8) of the said Act. 36A. Applying the aforesaid enunciation of law, it would emerge that in the present case, the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Securitisation rules has not been followed which is violative of the Act as well. This action of the respondent-bank cannot be upheld. The Apex Court has reiterated the said position by holding in similar circumstances in J. Rajiv Subramaniyans case, (AIR 2014 SC 1710) (supra), following its earlier decision in Mathews case (supra). 37. The Supreme Court in its latest judgment in Vasu P. Shettys case, (AIR 2014 SC 1947) (supra) had held that the sale in violation of the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8 & 9 of Securitistion rules was null and void. The Supreme Court noticed that the auction was held on 21.03.2005 and the notice for publication was fixed on 09.03.2005 and another notice was issued on 07.05.2006 and the auction was on 08.05.2006. The borrower had challenged the auction initially by filing a writ petition and then filed an appeal before the DRT which was dismissed and thereafter approached the High Court and the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay. However, the Division Bench set aside the sale keeping in view the violations under Rule 8(5) and Rule 8(6) as well as Rule 9. The Apex Court held as under:- 17. However, the Division Bench set aside the sale keeping in view the violations under Rule 8(5) and Rule 8(6) as well as Rule 9. The Apex Court held as under:- 17. It must be emphasized that generally proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the borrowers are initiated only when the borrower is in dire-straits. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules, 2002 have been enacted to ensure that the secured asset is not sold for a song. It is expected that all the banks and financial institutions which resort to the extreme measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for sale of the secured assets to ensure, that such sale of the asset provides maximum benefit to the borrower by the sale of such asset. Therefore, the secured creditors are expected to take bona fide measures to ensure that there is maximum yield from such secured assets for the borrowers. In the present case, Mr. Dhruv Mehta has pointed out that sale consideration is only Rs.10,000/- over the reserve price whereas the property was worth much more. It is not necessary for us to go into this question as, in our opinion, the sale is null and void being in violation of the provision of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002. 38. Yet another illegality by the respondent-bank cannot be ignored. The respondent-bank has not shown to this Court as to when the property at Jalandhar bearing plot Nos. 200-201 which now has been sold to respondent No. 4-Amrik Chand was taken over and has not attached any possession notice under Section 13(4) regarding taking over the said property. Thus, the sale of the two plots cannot be sustained. The sale certificate dated 25.04.2012 (Annexure R-1/15) whereby, the immovable property of the hospital of the six sale-deeds also does not mention the sale consideration of the said plots though it has been averred that the sale consideration was 23.06 crores but it does not find mention in the sale certificate issued under Section 13(12) of the SARFAESI Act. Though under Appendix V, it has to be specifically mentioned that consideration amount has to be mentioned in the sale certificate. Though under Appendix V, it has to be specifically mentioned that consideration amount has to be mentioned in the sale certificate. Similarly, the sale certificate issued for the movable property of the bank also mentions that the said property has been sold for 2,43,00,000/- only but the description of the property is absolutely silent and only mentions that it is in terms of the valuation report dated 19.03.2012. The said certificate reads thus:- SALE CERTIFICATE (for Movable property) Whereas, The undersigned being the authorized officer of the UCO Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (No. 54 of 2002) and in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (12) of section 13 read with rule 7 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 has in consideration of the payment of Rs. 243 lacs (Rupees Two Crore Forty Three Lacs only) sold on behalf of the UCO Bank in favour of M/S Ludhiana Mediways the following movable property secured in favour of the UCO Bank by M/S I A A Hospital Pvt. Ltd. towards the financial facility Term Loan and Cash credit offered by UCO Bank. The undersigned acknowledge the receipt of the sale price in full and handed over the delivery and possession of the items listed below. Description of the Movable Property Plant & Machinery along with Medical equipments financed by the bank (in term of valuation report dated 19.03.2012) 39. The valuation report has not been placed on record to show the items which were sold. There is a contradiction since on 20.03.2012 itself, the bank has mentioned that there was no valuation and in the absence of the same, the proposal given could not be accepted. Similar is the position of ambiguity regarding the sale certificate pertaining to plot Nos. 200-201 measuring 23 marlas 44 square feet at Jalandhar and the sale certificate dated 26.04.2012 (Annexure R-1/17) is totally silent as to the sale consideration for the said part of land. Similar is the position of ambiguity regarding the sale certificate pertaining to plot Nos. 200-201 measuring 23 marlas 44 square feet at Jalandhar and the sale certificate dated 26.04.2012 (Annexure R-1/17) is totally silent as to the sale consideration for the said part of land. The sale certificate reads as under: SALE CERTIFICATE (for Immovable property) Whereas, The undersigned being the authorized officer of the UCO Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Act, 2002 and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 13 read with rule 12 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 sold on behalf of the UCO Bank in favour of Sh. Amrik Chand s/o Sh. Sardhu Ram, the immovable property shown in the schedule below secured in favour of the UCO Bank by M/S A.A. Hospital Pvt. Ltd. towards the financial facility Term Loan and Cash credit offered by UCO Bank). The undersigned acknowledge the receipt of the sale price in full and handed over the delivery and possession of the scheduled property. The sale of the scheduled property was made free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor listed below on deposit of the money demanded by the undersigned. Description of Immovable Property All that part and parcel of the property plot No. 200-201 measuring 23 marlas 44 sq. feets (700 Sq. Yds) situated at Vivek Enclave, Nakodar Road, Khurla Kingra Jallandhar, comprised in khasra No. 128/129/1, 131, 143, 144, 2428/146, 2430/147, 127 vide wasika No. 3414 dated 14.08.2008 in the name of Smt. Kulwinder Kaur w/o Sh.Balbir Singh Sekhon. 40. As per the reserve price fixed, the same was 78.75 lacs but there is no mention as to how much amount has been received against the said pieces of land. Thus, the issuance of the sale certificate as per the mandatory requirements of Rule 9(6) Appendix V is also missing as no consideration amount has been depicted for this particular piece of property. 41. All these factors only point towards one aspect as to how the bank has proceeded in a haste and nothing has been placed on record to show that there were many tenders for both the immoveable property and the moveable, which was advertised on 23.03.2012 and sold on 31.03.2012. Accordingly, the notice of sale and the subsequent auction proceedings cannot be held to be justified in any manner. 42. Accordingly, the notice of sale and the subsequent auction proceedings cannot be held to be justified in any manner. 42. Adverting to the second question regarding availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is concerned, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is answered against the respondent-bank. The plea of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for this Court to entertain a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, more particularly when there exist numerous violations of the statutory provisions. The Apex Court in the case of Satyawati Tondons case, ( AIR 2010 SC 3413 , Para 18) (supra) has enunciated the principles of alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act. In the said case, the Division Bench of the High Court had passed a restraint order from taking action in furtherance of the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act and the borrower had not gone to Tribunal. It was in such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the High Court had committed a serious error by entertaining the writ petition of the borrower when the remedies available are both expeditious and effective. It was in such circumstances, the Apex Court noticed that it was a self imposed restraint and interim orders should not be passed. The relevant observations in Satyawati Tondons case (supra) read thus:- 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 43. In Ikbals case (supra) it was held that the alternate remedy was not an absolute bar to the exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant observations read thus:- 27. No doubt an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 but by now it is well settled that where a statute provides efficacious and adequate remedy, the High Court will do well in not entertaining a petition under Article 226. On misplaced considerations, statutory procedures cannot be allowed to be circumvented. 44. Similarly, in Mathews case (supra), the DRT had passed the orders in the S.A., which were challenged by the guarantors by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground of alternate and efficacious remedy. The guarantors filed an appeal before the Division Bench, which set aside the sale on the ground that it was not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The said finding was not disturbed by the Apex Court on the ground that in spite of the fact that an objection was taken that the Division Bench should not have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the setting aside of the sale was upheld on merits. The subsequent portion whereby extension had been granted for deposit of amount was only interfered with. In J. Rajiv Subramaniyans case, (AIR 2014 SC 1710) (supra), the auction proceedings were challenged by way of filing a writ petition and the judgment in Satyawati Tondons case, ( AIR 2010 SC 3413 ) (supra) was also taken into consideration by the Apex Court but the setting aside of the auction proceedings by the Single Judge and upheld in appeal were not disturbed on account of any alternate remedy being not availed off. Similar was the position in Vasu P. Shettys case, (AIR 2014 SC 1947) (supra) where the auction notice had been challenged by filing a writ petition which was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the auction under the SARFAESI Act. The DRT dismissed the appeal and the matter was then challenged before the High Court. The Single Judge of Karnataka High Court had dismissed the writ petition but the Division Bench allowed the intra court appeal and the sale was set aside and which finding was approved by the Apex Court and the borrower was not relegated to his alternative remedy. The relevant portion of Vasu P. Shettys case (supra) reads thus:- 10. It would be relevant to mention here that the borrower had filed the Writ Petition 6471/2006 challenging the auction notice. However, it withdrew this Writ Petition on 1.6.2006 with liberty to avail alternate remedy to challenge the auction that is provided under SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, it filed the appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. This appeal was dismissed by the DRT on 5.7.2007 with the observations that the borrower was only adopting dilatory tactics. This order was challenged by the borrower in the form of writ petition filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. The learned Single Judge echoed the reasoning given by the DRT and dismissed the Writ Petition vide orders dated 19.9.2011. Against this order, the borrower approached the Division Bench by filing intra court appeal which has been allowed by the High Court. The sale in question is set aside. 45. Accordingly, upshot of the above cumulative discussion, in our opinion, the sale notice dated 23/24.03.2012 is violative of the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act as there has been no proper valuation and the sale notice did not provide for the minimum 30 days-period and no proper inventory has been prepared and the assets have been sold and the property at Jalandhar has also been sold without showing when the possession was taken and for what value. Consequently, the order dated 12.07.2012 of the Tribunal, whereby, a seal of approval had been granted to the sale certificates issued in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are also quashed. The said respondents-auction purchasers shall surrender the possession of the property to the authorized officer of the bank within a period of two months from today. Consequently, the order dated 12.07.2012 of the Tribunal, whereby, a seal of approval had been granted to the sale certificates issued in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are also quashed. The said respondents-auction purchasers shall surrender the possession of the property to the authorized officer of the bank within a period of two months from today. The bank shall refund the auction amount to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without any interest in the present case, on the said surrender as admittedly, the said respondents have utilized the premises for the purpose of running the hospital and have enjoyed the property for a period of more than 2 years. However, respondent No. 4 shall be compensated with interest @ 9% per annum on the auction amount deposited. The bank is given liberty to re-auction the properties in question by following the proper procedure in accordance with law. Needless to say, it is always open to the petitioners-borrowers to deposit the outstanding amounts in order to retrieve their properties as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 46. With the abovesaid observations, the present writ petitions bearing Nos. 17785 and 14741 of 2012 are allowed. CWP No. 15248 of 2012, filed by the proposed buyer is rendered infructuous. In case the property is put to sale, it is always open to them to purchase the same. Petition allowed.