Judgment :- Satish K.Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the auction sale held on 2.8.2014 by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the third respondent, as null and void. 2. The brief facts in nutshell which are necessary for the disposal of this case are that the petitioner-company had admittedly availed credit facilities from the respondents-Bank. In default to make the payment of borrowed amount, a notice of demand under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) was sent to him on 27.10.2011. Thereafter, possession notice was issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 16.02.2012. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, along with its Directors, approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 29.3.2012. After having taken possession of the property in question i.e. secured assets, e-auction notice was published on 28.5.2012, giving 30 days mandatory notice to the petitioner-borrower. 3. Questioning the said e-auction notice dated 28.5.2012 and further, seeking a direction to grant reasonable time limit of four months to pay the entire loan amount, the petitioner came up with the writ petition being W.P.No.15798 of 2012 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 27.7.2012, based on the undertaking given by the petitioner, granted time till 15.9.2012 to pay the entire amount, failing which, the respondent-Bank was given liberty to take appropriate steps to recover the amount due to it, as per law. 4. The petitioner again failed to make the payment. Thus, on 16.9.2012, sale notice inviting tenders, was issued fixing the date of auction as 19.10.2012 and the same was informed to the petitioner vide covering letter dated 17.9.2012. At that stage, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.No.20838 of 2013, seeking a direction to the respondents for One Time Settlement proposal and the same was dismissed. However, for want of bidders, the sale scheduled on 29.7.2013 could not take place. The petitioner came forward to pay a sum of Rs.1.30 Crores under One Time Settlement and agreed to pay Rs.35 lakhs on or before 30.9.2013 and the balance amount in three instalments. But, he could not honour his commitment. However, for want of bidders, the sale scheduled on 29.7.2013 could not take place. The petitioner came forward to pay a sum of Rs.1.30 Crores under One Time Settlement and agreed to pay Rs.35 lakhs on or before 30.9.2013 and the balance amount in three instalments. But, he could not honour his commitment. Again, the respondent Bank issued a sale notice dated 21.6.2014, fixing the auction date on 26.7.2014 and a copy of the notice was sent to the petitioner and its directors which were returned unserved. Due to administrative reasons, the date of sale was rescheduled to 2.8.2014 and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.7.2014 and also published in the newspaper on the same day. Consequent to reschedulement of the auction date, last date for submission of the bid was also extended upto 30.7.2014. As the 3rd respondent was the sole bidder, his bid amount of Rs.135 lakhs was accepted and entire sale consideration was paid within the time and sale certificate was issued to him on 20.8.2014. On the ground that the respondents failed to issue personal notice under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, the auction sale held on 2.8.2014 is sought to be declared as null and void. 5. The auction sale took place pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 27.10.2011. The petitioner being the borrower had ample opportunities to pay back the debt and to retain the property in question, which was mortgaged as secured asset. Before the auction sale, the petitioner was given proper notice as required under the provisions of law. The petitioner failed to pay back the outstanding dues. Thus, the bank was constrained to sell the secured asset by way of sale auction. 6. We do not find any procedural or material irregularity in the action of the respondent Bank by putting the secured asset on auction. As informed by the learned counsel for the respondents, even the sale certificate has been issued way back on 20.08.2014. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.