ORDER Sale Notice, dated 27.01.2015, issued under SARFAESI Act, is sought to be quashed, by issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus, with a consequential direction to the respondent bank to receive the balance amount from the petitioner, as one time settlement, together with reasonable interest @9% per annum. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to release the petitioner's property from security. 2. As per the supporting affidavit, the petitioner had availed loan from the respondent bank to the tune of Rs.11,38,32,000/-and thereafter, the said loan account has been declared as a non-performing asset, as on 10.04.2008 and a sum of Rs.15,81,07,890/-has been demanded by the respondent Bank. Apart from that, M/s.Muthu Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., had also availed term loan facility with the respondent bank and a sum of Rs.76,18,345/-has been declared, as due in respect of the said account. The said account has also been declared as a non-performing asset, on 28.03.2008. According to the petitioner, when the matter was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, he submitted a proposal for negotiation and one time settlement and a final compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent bank and accordingly, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.850 Lakhs, together with interest at the rate of 10.75%. It is further contended by the petitioner that sofar, he has paid Rs.360 lakhs, vide Demand Draft, dated 12.06.2012 and that the same has been acknowledged by letter, dated 12.06.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner requested some time for paying the balance amount, which was rejected by the respondent bank. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued Auction Notice on 19.11.2013 and that the same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.20621 of 2013. When the said writ petition was pending, the respondent bank issued a fresh auction notice, on 04.02.2014. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P. (MD)No.3781 of 2014 challenging the auction notice, dated 04.02.2014. 3. The petitioner has contended that pursuant to the directions of this Court, he paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore. W.P.(MD)No. 3781 of 2014 was disposed of on 04.07.2014. Reliance is also placed on the abovesaid order, by which the Honb'ble Division Bench of this Court, at paragraph 6, has observed as follows: “6. 3. The petitioner has contended that pursuant to the directions of this Court, he paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore. W.P.(MD)No. 3781 of 2014 was disposed of on 04.07.2014. Reliance is also placed on the abovesaid order, by which the Honb'ble Division Bench of this Court, at paragraph 6, has observed as follows: “6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Bank to give in writing to the petitioner, within one week from receipt of a copy of this order, the actual amount payable by the petitioner, either as per the original AOTS proposal or as per any other modified proposal, upon consideration of their present request. The moment the petitioner receives such a statement from the bank, he shall comply with the same so that the chance for redemption of the mortgaged properties is not lost. .....” 4. Record of proceedings shows that while ordering Notice of Motion on 04.03.2015, a Hon'ble Division Bench has passed the following orders in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD)No.2900 of 2015: “3.Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the earlier notice issued by the respondent Central Bank of India, dated 04.02.2014 wherein the amount of debt and future interest was stated at Rs. 8,42,31,680/-. However, as per the impugned notice dated 27.01.2015, the amount due and payable is stated as Rs.3602.15 lakhs. 4. On a perusal of the impugned notice, no details are available as to how the amount earlier stated on 04.02.2014 was suddenly shoot up upto to the level of more than Rs.36 Crores. 5. Learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the earlier order passed by this Court on 04.07.2014 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.1 crore and the conditional order has been complied with and on 12.06.2012, a sum of Rs.360 lakhs was paid and the same was recorded. The said factum has been stated in the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 04.07.2014. 6. The said factum has been stated in the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 04.07.2014. 6. Having considered the fact that suddenly the respondent has claimed more than Rs.36 Crores in spite of the fact that the earlier claim was only a sum of Rs.8,42,31,680/-and also considering the fact that the conditional order passed earlier was complied with b y the petitioner, we find just and reasonable to grant an interim stay on reasonable conditions whereby directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.2 Crores in the respondent Bank without prejudice to the claim of both the parties on or before 25.03.2015 failing which the conditional stay granted shall stand vacated automatically without any further reference to this Court. 7. The matter is directed to be listed on 25.03.2015 for reporting compliance on 25.03.2015.” 5. On 07.07.l2015, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr. Malaiyenthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, submitted that the interim order, directing the writ petitioner to deposit Rs.2 crores has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner took time to ascertain this fact. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner confirms the above statement. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Debt has not been discharged. After following statutory provisions, impugned sale notice has been issued on 27.01.2015. Even as per the averments made in the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.850 lakhs, together with interest at the rate of 10.75% plus 4% from 21.08.2010, on the date of filing of the writ petition. A sum of Rs.1 Crore is said to have been deposited. Though a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had shown indulgence in granting stay of the impugned sale notice, dated 27.01.2015, vide order dated 04.03.2015 in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD)No.2900 of 2015, on condition that the petitioner should deposit Rs.2 Crores with the respondent bank, without prejudice to the claim of both the parties, on or before 25.03.2015 and further made it clear that on failure, the conditional order of stay granted shall stand automatically vacated, without any further reference to this court, admittedly, the conditional order has not been complied with. The fact remains that the petitioner has enjoyed the benefit of stay, without complying with the orders of this Court, from 04.03.2015. 8. The fact remains that the petitioner has enjoyed the benefit of stay, without complying with the orders of this Court, from 04.03.2015. 8. Writ of mandamus sought for against the respondent bank to receive the balance amount, as per one time settlement, together with reasonable interest at the rate of 9% per annum and release the petitioner's property from security cannot be granted, in view of the admission on the part of the petitioner that as on the date of filing of the writ petition a sum of Rs.850 lakhs with interest at the rate of 10.75% plus 4% from 21.08.2010 was due, which was agreed to be paid. Bank is always empowered to decide as to whether One Time Settlement can be offered or not. Till today, no proceedings have been placed before this Court, in support of the contention that One Time Settlement, has been agreed upon by the Bank. Bank cannot be compelled to do so. Petitioner has not shown his bona fide in complying with the directions of this Court. 9. Though a Writ Petition is not maintainable, against an auction notice, issued under SARFAESI Act, still a Hon'ble Division Bench has exercised its discretion, in granting a interim order, which the petitioner has not complied with. As remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is equitable, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, in enjoying the benefit of stay, without complying with the conditions, equity cannot be extended to him. Therefore, for the reasons stated supra, writ of certiorarified mandamus cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed and the interim order of stay granted is vacated.