JUDGMENT : K.M. Jospeh, C.J. (Oral) Appellant is the writ petitioner and is a borrower from the respondent bank on the strength of mortgage of three properties. There being default, the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was invoked. After serving possession notices, proceedings were taken for bringing the property to sale. Appellant was served with notice, by which, its objections were invited in regard to fixation of the reserve price of the three items of the property. Appellant made available its objections. Inter alia, it is contended that properties were originally valued at about 1.41 crores at the time of mortgage and when the matter is valued now for the purpose of the sale, it is shown in the aggregate amount of Rupees 69.90 lacs. The complaint of the appellant appears to be that it is very low. The impugned order reads as follows: “ROD/R&L/SSM Engg/2014-15 7079 01.09.2014 To SSM Enginners Pvt. Ltd. Nala Pani Chowk, Near Kumar Sweet Shop, Sahasthdhara Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand. Dear Sir, Valuation of property mortgaged with the Bank A/c SSM Engineers Pvt Ltd In reference to your letter dated 26.08.2014, received on 30.08.2014 in the above context, wherein you had submitted valuation report of three properties viz report no.1690, 1691 and 1692 dated 22.08.2014 through Bank’s approved valuer sh. Nanak Chand Gupta (House no.46, Karuna Kunj, Sec-3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078) Now, we are to inform you that the above valuer Sh. Nanak Chand Gupta has submitted vide his letter dated 30.08.2014 that due to cutting pasting while preparing the above cited valuations on the computer, there are some mistakes left in the reports, as such these may be kept in abeyance. Therefore we are not taking any congnizance of the above valuation report and are proceeding further towards auction of property. However in case you have any buyer who is ready to purchase the properties at higher price, may be advised to participate in the bid. This is for your information please. Sd/- Deputy General Manager” 2. On the basis of said order, the writ petition was filed. However in case you have any buyer who is ready to purchase the properties at higher price, may be advised to participate in the bid. This is for your information please. Sd/- Deputy General Manager” 2. On the basis of said order, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge took the view that the petitioner was informed by the Bank by Annexure No. 21 dated 01.09.2014 to bring a buyer who is ready to purchase the property on higher price so that he may be advised to participate in the bid. The only grievance of the appellant, which is noted, was that it was 69.90 lacs in the auction notice; whereas the valuation of the property is 1.61 crore and that valuation of the property was assessed as 1.42 crore at the time of sanctioning the loan. Valuation of the property was very low was the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Single Judge took the view that since the appellant was advised to bring the buyer who is ready to purchase the property at a higher price, therefore, the grievance of the appellant that the valuation of the property is shown lesser does not hold water. Appellant, if he is so advised, may bring the buyer who is ready to purchase the property for Rs. 1.61 crore or higher than Rs. 1.61 crore and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Shri Rakesh Thapliayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that there is a clear arbitrariness. He would submit that appellant has given its objections and points out the manner, in which it was responded to, as reflected in the impugned order. He also drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Kishun and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 511 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held, inter alia, as follows: “13. Undoubtedly, public money should be recovered and recovery should be made expeditiously. But it does not means 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. 18. But it does not means 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. 18. The word “value” means intrinsic worth or cost or price for sale of a thing/property. {Vide Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. ( 1984 (1) SCC 467 ) and Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries ( 1996 (2) SCC 626 )}. 19. In State of U.P. vs. Shiv Charan Sharma (1981 Supp SCC 85) this Court explained the meaning of “reserve price” explaining that it is the price with which the public auction starts and the auction bidders are not permitted to give bids below the said price i.e. the minimum bid at auction. 20. In Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. ( 2004 (8) SCC 671 ) 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. ( 2000 (1) SCC 633 ), 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. In Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. N.L. Anand ( 1994 (1) SCC 131 ) this Court held that in an auction-sale and in execution of the civil court’s decree, the Court has to apply its mind to the need for furnishing the relevant material particulars in the sale proclamation and the records must indicate that there has been application of mind and principle of natural justice had been complied with. (See also Gajadhar Prasad v. Babu Bhakta Ratan ( 1973 (2) SCC 629 ), S.S. Dayananda v. K.S. Nagesh Rao ( 1997 (4) SCC 451 ), D.S. Chohan v. State Bank of Patiala ( 1997 (10) SCC 565 ) and Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar ( 2004 (7) SCC 151 ). 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.” 5. He also relied on judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Canara Tile Work and othrs Vs. Canara Bank and another reported in 2011 AIR (Karnataka) 110. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bank would submit that the appellant had a remedy against that order under Section 17 of the Act. According to the respondents, actually in the order dated 01.09.2014, they have decided not to rely on the report of Nanak Chand Gupta, but there were two other reports and from the two reports, they have taken the higher price, which is the report of Jindal and that is how, it is valued at Rs. 69.90 lacs in the whole. 7. We would think that at this juncture, it is necessary to refer the prayer in the writ petition. The prayer is as follows: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 1-9-2014 of the Deputy General Manager, whereby the petitioner has been reported that the bank is proceeding towards auction of the property and further gave an option to the petitioner that in case the petitioner has any buyer who is ready to purchase the property at higher price may be advised to participate in the bid, as well as the E-auction notice dated 31-10-2014 published on 1-11-2014 passed by the Authorized Officer (respondent No.3).” 8. Therefore, a perusal of the prayer would show that it was the appellant’s own request that in case the appellant has any buyer who is ready to purchase the property at higher price may be advised to participate in the bid as well as in the E-auction and we find that as far as this part of prayer is concerned, the learned Single Judge has granted that prayer as the learned Single Judge has ordered that if the appellant is so advised, it may bring the buyer who is ready to purchase the property for 1.61 crore or higher than 1.61 crore. As regards the challenge to the order or other measures under Section 13 relating to the sale, we would think that the appellant should be relegated to approach the Tribunal. Accordingly, we relegate the appellant to seek remedies before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. We further order that interim order passed by this Court will continue for a period of two weeks from today. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.