JUDGMENT SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the E-Auction Notice dated 31.12.2014 issued under Rules 8(6) and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short the Rules 2002). 2. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent bank ought to have initiated proceedings against the property of Bhavaa Paper Pulp Packs, whose account was classified as Non Performing Asset before initiating proceedings against the property of Bhavaa Tray Packaging, which was also classified as a deemed Non Performing Asset, due to the default of the former's account. It is further contended that the sale proceeds of Bhavaa Paper Pulp Packs would satisfy the outstanding dues of the bank and as such, the said property should have been brought for sale and not the property of Bhavaa Tray Packaging, which is a running concern and which has several employees on its rolls, who are depending on their job to eke out their livelihood. 3. We have examined the impugned E-Auction Notice issued under Rules 8(6) and 9 of the Rules 2002. 4. Rule 8 of the Rules contemplates sale of immovable secured asset. Sub-rule 6 provides that a notice shall be served on the borrower granting 30 days time before sale of the immovable secured asset. Rule 9 of the Rules provides that no sale of immovable properties shall take place before the expiry of 30 days from the date on which public notice of sale is published. The time lag of 30 days has been provided to enable the borrower to make a representation and also to settle the dispute by making payment. There is no dispute that both the properties are secured assets. Now, the question is as to which property should be sold at the first stage. This has to be decided by the Recovery Officer/Authorised Officer. For that purpose, the borrower is at liberty to make a representation to the Recovery Officer/Authorised Officer. If such a representation is made, the Recovery Officer/Authorised Officer is competent to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. The petitioner has not pointed out that any representation was made to the Recovery Officer/Authorised Officer to this effect before approaching this Court, seeking quashing of the auction notice, as aforestated. The E-Auction Notice cannot be quashed on the grounds as stated by the petitioner hereinabove. The petitioner has not pointed out that any representation was made to the Recovery Officer/Authorised Officer to this effect before approaching this Court, seeking quashing of the auction notice, as aforestated. The E-Auction Notice cannot be quashed on the grounds as stated by the petitioner hereinabove. It is not the case of the petitioner that without following the statutory requirements, i.e., without affording any opportunity to the borrower under the provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and other relevant provisions, the property in question has been put to sale by way of e-auction. 5. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the prescribed authority under the provisions of law, if so advised. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.