ORDER : A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, originally the petitioner sough to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the auction notice, dated 02-01-2015, issued by respondent No. 2 - Andhra Bank, Rayavaram Branch, East Godavari District proposing to sell her properties i.e., Item (1) R.S. No. 335/5 of extent Ac. 0.46 cents, Item (2) R.S. No. 335/2 extent Ac. 0.21 cents and item (3) Ac. 0.16½ cents located at pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District along with H. No. 1-152 located in the same village, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to set aside the same. Thus, the writ petition was filed on 10-02-2015. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in W.P.M.P. No. 14070 of 2015 on 13-04-2015, requesting to permit her to amend the prayer by adding the words "Rule 8(6) notice dated 20-12-2014" after the words, "Writ of Mandamus declaring the" and "Auction notice dated 20-12-2014 issued by Respondent No. 3". The said petition seeking amendment of the prayer was ordered on 15-04-2015 as it was not opposed. Subsequent to the amendment of prayer in the writ petition, the relief reads thus: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declaring the "Rule 8(6) notice dated 20.12.2014 Auction Notice dt. 20.12.2014 issued by Respondent No. 3 proposing sale of petitioner's properties i.e. Item (1) R.S. No. 335/5 of extent Ac. 0.46 cents, Item (2) R.S. No. 335/2 of extent Ac. 0.21 cts and Item (3) Ac. 0.16 1/2 cts located at Pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District along with H. No. 1-152 located at Pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 r/w Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and in violation of article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, and further to set aside the same." 2. In the affidavit also, in paragraph No. 17, the said amendment was carried out, which reads thus: "17. It is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declaring the "Rule 8(6) notice dated 20.12.2014 Auction Notice dt. 20.12.2014 issued by Respondent No. 3 proposing sale of petitioner's properties i.e. Item (1) R.S. No. 335/5 of extent Ac. 0.46 cents, Item (2) R.S. No. 335/2 of extent Ac. 0.21 cts and Item (3) Ac. 0.16" cts located at Pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District along with H. No. 1-152 located at Pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 r/w Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, and further to set aside the same." 3. Adverting to the facts giving rise to the present petition, one K. Nagamani, wife of K. Venkatrami Reddy, contracted a loan of Rs. 49.00 lakhs in the month of November, 2013 for Fertilizers and Pesticides business proposed by them. The petition herein stood as guarantor by giving the subject properties as security. She takes the ground that she was induced by one V. Durga Prasad and T. Gani Raju along with C. Satyanarayana to stand as guarantor. She also states that she mortgaged the subject properties since the loanee, K. Nagamani, and her husband induced her promising that they would pay half of the profits in the business along with the loan amount of Rs. 15.00 lakhs. Respondent No. 2 as a secured creditor released Rs. 49.00 lakhs in favour of the loanee. She states that when she approached the bank in the month of March, 2014, since the loanee has not kept up her promise, she was informed that the loanee had taken further loan and overdraft facility to the tune of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on the strength of the properties mortgaged by her. She alleges that neither the loanee nor the bank did intimate her or obtained her consent for extending the overdraft facility to the loanee on the properties given by her as security. 10.00 lakhs on the strength of the properties mortgaged by her. She alleges that neither the loanee nor the bank did intimate her or obtained her consent for extending the overdraft facility to the loanee on the properties given by her as security. She also alleges that when she questioned the loanee and her husband as they have not discharged the loan contacted by them at the instance of her well-wishers, loanee said to have executed an agreement, dated 03-03-2014, agreeing to repay the entire loan amount and furnished her original property documents, and executed an agreement to that effect, but thereafter, loanee and her husband secretly left the village and their whereabouts have been not known to her. She even lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Rayavaram Police Station, in the month of September, 2014 and on her complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, dated 27-09-2014, First Information Report was registered against the loanee and her husband. (b) As a secured creditor, respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act from the month of March, 2014 onwards. Respondent No. 3 as the authorized officer of the bank had issued paper publication on 01-11-2014 proposing e-auction on 03-12-2014 by fixing the reserve price at Rs. 74.45 lakhs, but left the house property in the said notification. (c) Respondent No. 3 -Assistant General Manager and Authorized Officer, Andhra Bank, Rayavaram Branch, East Godavari District, again issued another auction notification, dated 02-01-2015, proposing to auction the subject properties along with house property on 05-02-2015, but mentioning the reserve price for items 1 to 3 at Rs. 30.73 lakhs and for house property at Rs. 10.36 lakhs. Thus, according to the petitioner, the property valuation has been reduced to more than half from the first notification and she complains that no notice or opinion was sought from her before re-fixing the reserve price of the subject property. (d) She also refers to leasing out an extent of Ac. 0.63 1/2 cents to a tenant from the secured property and tenant filing ATC No. 4 of 2014 on the file of Special Officer-cum-JCJ at Anaparthy (A.P. Tenancy Tribunal) seeking declaration as statutory tenant. She also referred to incidental proceedings therein. (d) She also refers to leasing out an extent of Ac. 0.63 1/2 cents to a tenant from the secured property and tenant filing ATC No. 4 of 2014 on the file of Special Officer-cum-JCJ at Anaparthy (A.P. Tenancy Tribunal) seeking declaration as statutory tenant. She also referred to incidental proceedings therein. (e) While extracting Rule 8(5) of the Rules, she states that there cannot be huge variance in valuation of the property from the auction notification of 01-11-2014 to that of 02-01-2015 in a span of two months and the valuation adopted by respondent No. 3 is less than the principal amount. (f) The petitioner then refers to the issuance of notice dated 20-12-2014 by respondent No. 3 calling upon her to discharge the loan due, which notice according to the petitioner, was styled as notice under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, but does not mention the date of auction, violation etc., and thereby does not meet the requirement of mandatory notice under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, and, therefore, the auction is bad and is unsustainable. (g) The petitioner states that the auction was not confirmed as on the date of filing of the instant writ petition in favour of any person and since the presiding officer in Visakhapatnam, Debts Recovery Tribunal is not available, in the exigencies of the case, she had no other alternative except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for effective remedy. Thus, she sought the relief as mentioned above. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 while attacking the allegation of inducement set up by the petitioner, stated that the very fact, the loanee promised to pay Rs. 15.00 lakhs to her would show that she was aware about the security furnished to the bank and she cannot claim any share in the loan and, thus, exposes that she tried to cheat the bank by entering into secret agreement, which is illegal and, thus, she is not bona fidely approached this Court, and, therefore, the equitable relief sought for cannot be granted to the petitioner. 5. 5. Concerning overdraft facility accorded to the loanee, since the petitioner had executed the documents accepting the terms and conditions of the loan granted or to be granted by the bank, she cannot have any grounds for non-intimation or consent, as the personal guarantee furnished by her stipulated, that she has given authority and power to the bank for release of the loan amount and overdraft loan. 6. Concerning the first auction, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 state that since no bidders came forward nor the petitioner has taken initiative to bring the bidders to clear the loan amount, the bank assessed the valuation as per the prevailing market conditions and she cannot raise any objection and she has invented the same for the purpose of filing the instant writ petition. 7. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 state that e-auction was conducted as per the schedule as published in newspapers on 05-02-2015 and the bid was knocked down to the highest bidders. Residential plot No. 5 bearing Survey No. 335/5, 335/2 and 335/7 in Block No. 1 at Pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal, of an extent of 631/2 cents was knocked down in favour of RVVS Prasad for an amount of Rs. 41.73 lakhs and 25% thereof Rs. 10.44 lakhs was received by the bank. Likewise, the residential house at Pasalapudi Village was knocked down for Rs. 15.23 lakhs in favour of one S. Satyanarayana Reddy and he has paid an amount of Rs. 3,81,000/- towards 25% of the bid amount. As per the auction conditions, the remaining 75% amount has to be paid within 15 days of the confirmation of the bid in favour of the highest bidder, but in view of the interim direction passed by this Court, the sale could not be confirmed and the bidders did not pay the remaining balance amount to the bank and the petitioner not even made any attempt to repay the loan amount, but only interested to stay the proceedings without paying any amount to the bank. They state that the petitioner is having alternative efficacious remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the instant request for issuance of writ of mandamus is misconceived, and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. They state that the petitioner is having alternative efficacious remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the instant request for issuance of writ of mandamus is misconceived, and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the reserve price for items 1 to 3 of the subject property, was shown as Rs. 74.45 lakhs in the auction notification, dated 01-11-2014, whereas, in the auction notification, dated 02-01-2015, reserve price was reduced from Rs. 74.45 lakhs to Rs. 30.73 lakhs. Incidentally, it is his submission that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to participate in fixation of reserve price though she is the guarantor, still, she steps into the shoes of the principal borrower. Thus, the huge variance in valuation of the property would reflect that valuation was not as per the norms, and, therefore, sought to set aside the auction held on 05-02-2015. His next submission is that when the respondents issued notice under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, dated 20-12-2014, it does not contain date of notification/auction and, thus, it does not satisfy the requirement of mandatory notice as envisaged by the said Rule and, therefore, the auction is unsustainable. In support of his argument, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in Kanha International and others v. Union of India and others (1) AIR 2011 Gujarat 108. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the reserve price was mentioned based on proper valuation, as the approved valuer, having observed due formalities, has submitted a valuation report, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the reserve price mentioned in the second notification was not based on proper appraisal of value of the subject property prevailing in the market. It is also his submission that e-auction, dated 02-01-2015, clearly shows that the auction was proposed to be held on 05-02-2015 and since it was published on 02-01-2015, there was thirty (30) days latitude between the date of publication and date of auction and, thus, it is in strict compliance of Rule 8(6) of the Rules and does not suffer from any illegality in observing the mandatory requirement. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in M/s. Sea poly Plast India Private Limited and others v. Union of India and others (2) W.P. No. 1956 of 2011, dated 14-11-2011 and also a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Sureshbhai Kalidas Soni v. Union of India (3) C/SCA/9655/2014, dated 15-09-2014 for the proposition that an implicit right is vested in the borrower to object to the valuation upon receipt of a notice under Rules 8(6) of the Rules. 11. At the outset, we would like to mention that there are patent defects in the instant writ petition. The petitioner has not chosen to show the borrower as respondent in the array of respondents. It is no doubt true, she made an attempt to exonerate her from making the principal borrower as respondent by referring to the F.I.R. lodged by her leveling allegations against the borrower, but that would not in any way assist her in not joining the principal borrower in the array of respondents. This apart, it is an admitted case that the auction has taken place on 05-02-2015 and even according to the petitioner, items 1 to 3 of subject property were knocked down in favour of the highest bidder viz., R.V.V.S. Prasad and he paid 25% of the bid amount and so the house property was also knocked down in favour of its highest bidder viz., S. Satyanarayana Reddy and he too deposited 25% of the bid amount as mandated by the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act. 12. Thus, both the auction purchasers have not been joined in the array of respondents. No reasons therefor are assigned by the petitioner. It is no doubt true, sale was not confirmed, but in view of the fact that both the bidders have participated in the auction, preceded by inspection of the properties proposed to be auctioned, and having become the highest bidders of the respective properties, and deposited 1/4th of the bid amount, intending to deposit the balance amount within fifteen (15) days as per the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Rules, invariably they ought to have been made as party-respondents, in whose absence, the issue involved cannot be adjudicated upon effectually and completely. Hence, it is difficult to accede to the request of the petitioner. Both these circumstances would account for patent defects in the instant writ petition. Hence, it is difficult to accede to the request of the petitioner. Both these circumstances would account for patent defects in the instant writ petition. 13. As projected by us in the above, on two grounds, petitioner intends to get the auction held on 05-02-2015 set aside. 14. The first ground, according to the petitioner, is there has been no proper valuation while fixing reserve price in the auction notice, dated 02-01-2015. As an answer, learned standing counsel for the respondents has submitted the valuation report and the relevant procedure adopted in arriving at fixing the reserve price with all relevant details. In our view, fixation of reserve price in the notification, dated 02-01-2015, does not suffer from any infirmity, since we have perused the report submitted by the valuer of the bank. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the stand of the petitioner. It is not as though, the petitioner had no opportunity at all to raise objection for fixation of reserve price since the auction notice, dated 02-01-2015, which was published on the same day, proposing to auction the mortgaged properties on 05-02-2015 providing thirty (30) days period, as mandated by the provisions of Rule 8(6) of the Rules. In this context, we intend to refer to the decision in Sea poly Plast India Private Limited's case (supra), a Division Bench of Bombay High Court while referring to the purpose of issuance of notice under sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 of the Rules, held that it is so intended to enable the borrower to repay the dues of the secured creditor together with the costs, charges and expenses under Section 13(8) of the act besides providing the borrower to raise objection to the valuation upon receipt of a notice under Rule 8(6) of the Rules. 15. In the instant case, the petitioner was provided with an opportunity in the notice, dated 20-12-2014, issued under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, but the petitioner has not availed of the opportunity. Even thereafter, when the e-publication was made, which is also questioned by the petitioner, she has not chosen to raise any objection as to fixation of reserve price or cleared the due amount, at least, before the auction, which was held on 05-02-2015. Even thereafter, when the e-publication was made, which is also questioned by the petitioner, she has not chosen to raise any objection as to fixation of reserve price or cleared the due amount, at least, before the auction, which was held on 05-02-2015. Even the Division Bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sureshbhai Kalidas Soni's Case (supra), the same proposition has been noted, thus: "According to us, Rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002 provides the necessary safeguard if the action is taken in arbitrary and unreasonable manner and if the valuation of the property is not properly fixed. The whole object or Rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002 appears to be that the borrower gets clear thirty days' notice before the sale taxes (Sic. takes) place. During this period, the borrower can raise objections and can also point out before the appropriate forum as regards the correct and true valuation of the property. The essential purpose of sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002 is to see that there is proper valuation by an approved valuer, who would be considered as an expert, and the view of the secured creditor on the C/SCA/9655/2014 JUDGMENT aspect of fixation of reserved price is taken into consideration by the authorized officer. Just because the borrower is excluded from Rule 8(5) of the Rules of 2002 or has no voice at the time when the valuation is fixed and the reserved price is also fixed, by itself will not render Rule 8(5) unconstitutional." 16. Thus, the petitioner is incorrect in canvassing that no opportunity was afforded to her to object to the report of the valuer and that the reserve price fixed was not based on proper procedure. 17. Initially, when the instant writ petition was filed, the relief sought for by the petitioner relates to the auction notice, dated 02-01-2015, alone. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No. 14070 of 2015 on 13-04-2015 and sought to add the relief by way of amendment challenging the notice, dated 20-12-2014, issued under Rule 8(6) of the Rules. 17. Initially, when the instant writ petition was filed, the relief sought for by the petitioner relates to the auction notice, dated 02-01-2015, alone. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No. 14070 of 2015 on 13-04-2015 and sought to add the relief by way of amendment challenging the notice, dated 20-12-2014, issued under Rule 8(6) of the Rules. The auction notice, dated 02-01-2015, proposing to conduct auction on 05-02-2015, between 11-00 a.m., and 12-00 noon, so far as the first item is concerned, which concerns with three sub-items and concerning the second item, which is house property, auction was proposed to be held between 12-00 noon and 1-00 p.m., the same day. Thus, it is clear that there is no infirmity in the auction notice, dated 02-01-2015. Perhaps, having got aggrieved of the same, she sought to add the further relief to quash the notice, dated 20-12-2014, issued under rule 8(6) of the Rules. It is no doubt true that in the notice, dated 20-12-2014, date of auction is not mentioned, though, it was shown that it was issued under Rules 6(2) and 8(6) of the Rules. However, through that notice, the petitioner was required to communicate within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of that letter as to whether she has any proposal for selling the property by private sale or by getting quotation. Admittedly, the said letter stood unanswered. That has been the reason why, the respondents have proposed to go for further steps of issuance of notice of e-auction, dated 02-01-2015. Thus, viewed from any angle, we do not find any flaw or infirmity in the notice, dated 02-01-2015. In our considered view, there is no substance in the grievance ventilated by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 20-12-2014 and the e-auction notice, dated 02-01-2015. 18. Thus, there is no merit in the instant writ petition to grant the relief of writ of mandamus. 19. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending stand disposed of.