JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren J.- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. It has been submitted that the impugned notice issued by the respondent bank, dated 22.1.2014, deferring the sale of the properties in question, is arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and invalid in the eye of law. There is no provision, either in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, or in the Securities Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, for deferring the sale, scheduled to have been held on 10.2.2014, by way of an addendum to the original sale notice, dated 26.12.2013. By issuing the addendum to the sale notice, dated 26.12.2013, the respondent bank had rescheduled the date of the e-auction sale as 26.2.2014, arbitrarily. 3. It has been further stated that the respondent bank had no authority or jurisdiction to defer the auction sale of the properties in question, by way of an addendum. In fact, Rule 8(6) of the Securities Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, mandates the authorized officer concerned to cause a public notice in two leading news papers having sufficient circulation in the locality, one of which should be in the vernacular language. The respondent bank is bound to effect wide publicity regarding the proposed auction sale of the secured assets to get the best price possible for the same. 4. It has been further stated that Rule 8(7) of the Securities Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, states that the sale notice relating to the immovable properties is to be affixed in a conspicuous part of the said properties. However, without following the said procedures, the respondent bank is attempting to sell the properties in question. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. 6. It is for the petitioner to challenge the sale notice, dated 26.12.2013, and the addendum issued, on 22.1.2014, if so advised, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. 6. It is for the petitioner to challenge the sale notice, dated 26.12.2013, and the addendum issued, on 22.1.2014, if so advised, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , and GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-op. Bank Ltd. V. Sri Ikbal, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC), we find it appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.