ORDER : A. Shankar Narayana, J. The writ petitioner is seeking Mandamus to declare action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Andhra Bank, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony Branch, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad and its Authorised Officer-cum-Chief Manager, in issuing sale confirmation letter, dated 10-03-2015, under ‘e-auction’, dated 09-03-2015, in respect of Flat bearing No.T-2 in the third floor of ‘SRI VENKATESHWARA RESIDENCY’, admeasuring 1380 square feet including common area together with undivided share of the land admeasuring 36 square yards out of 502.20 square yards in Survey No.175, situated at Uttam Nagar, Malkajgiri Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, and further direction of the bank to deposit a sum of Rs.3,67,500/- (Rupees three lakh sixty seven thousand and five hundred) subject to condition that if the said amount is not paid within a period of fifteen (15) days, the entire amount of Rs.11,32,500/- (Rupees eleven lakh thirty two thousand and five hundred) will be forfeited, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rules 5 (5) (d) and 9 (1) to (3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (for short ‘the Rules, 2002’), framed under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short ‘the Act’), and consequently to direct the bank to refund the amount of Rs.11,32,500/- with admissible rate of interest applied in case of fixed deposits. 2. The petitioner’s case, in brief, is as under: (i) In the e-auction sale notice, dated 02-02-2015, the bank got mentioned the following properties under ‘Schedule - A’ and ‘Schedule - B,’ thus: “SCHEDULE-A PROPERTY All that the House bearing No.21-128, on part of P.No.50 851, in Survey No.175, admeasuring 502.20 Sq.Yards or 419.90 Sq.Mts., situated at UTTAM NAGAR, under Malkajgiri Mandal & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and bounded by- North by 30’ Main Road, South by: Plot No.49, East by 25’ wide road, West by: 30’ wide road. SCHEDULE-B PROPERTY All that the residential Flat No.T-2, in 3rd floor, ‘SRI VENKATESHWARA RESIDENCY’, admeasuring 1380 sq.feet., of including common area together with undivided share of land of 36.00 sq.yards out of 502.20 Sq.Yards, in survey No.175, situated at UTTAM NAGAR, under Malkajigiri Mandal & Municipality, R.R. Dist, and bounded as under:- North by : Open to sky, South by: Open to sky, East by: Flat No.T-1, West by: Open to sky.” and that she did not participate in the ‘e-auction’. But, on coming to know about the auction scheduled to be held on 09-03-2015, at about 3.10 P.M., she met Authorised Officer of the bank to enquire about the property, and the Authorised Officer under the impression that she was interested in the property, directed her to deposit a sum of Rs.11,32,500/- to establish her bona fide approach assuring that if no one comes forward to purchase the property under e-auction, the property will be sold for a total sum of Rs.11,32,500/-. (ii) The petitioner states that she paid the entire amount as demanded by the bank under the impression that there are two separate properties and the demand to the said amount was reasonable, however, she was not invited for inspection or participation in the auction thereafter. (iii) The petitioner states that on 13-03-2015, she received notice, dated 10-03-2015, demanding to pay Rs.3,65,500/- on the ground that property under ‘Schedule-II’ alone was sold to her for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) and the balance amount has to be paid. She immediately addressed a letter on 14-03-2015 by registered post directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.11,32,500/- deposited by her stating that she was not interested in buying the property under ‘Schedule - II’ alone, and also personally served a copy of it on the bank officials on 17-03-2015 at 11.30 a.m. She was informed by the bank that though, there were two schedule mentioned properties in the e-auction notice, the property was only one i.e., residential flat bearing No.T-2 in third floor, ‘SRI VENKATESHWARA RESIDENCY’, admeasuring 1380 square feet, including common area together with undivided share of land of 36.00 square yards out of 502.20 square yards, in Survey No.175, situated at UTTAM NAGAR under Malkajigiri Mandal & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. Thus, according to her, respondent No.2 had wilfully and deliberately misrepresented the facts and induced her to pay Rs.11,32,500/- on 09-03- 2015. (iv) She states that she never uploaded her offer in the website and on local enquiry made by her, it was established that value of the flat was not more than Rs.7,00,000/- as the building (multistoried) was more than 18 years old and in dilapidated condition due to poor maintenance. (iv) She states that she never uploaded her offer in the website and on local enquiry made by her, it was established that value of the flat was not more than Rs.7,00,000/- as the building (multistoried) was more than 18 years old and in dilapidated condition due to poor maintenance. (v) It is also her case that for selling a property under private treaty in terms of Rules 8 (5) (d) and 8 (8) of the Rules, 2002, instead of auctioning property, the bank requires consent of the borrower - mortgagor. The petitioner has reproduced Sub-Rules (1) to (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002. (vi) Since request for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner was turned down, she approached this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming that she has no other effective alternative remedy. 3. The bank filed counter stating that the schedules mentioned properties in the e-auction notice were shown as ‘Schedule-A and Schedule-B’ to mention the undivided share in the land in which the flat is situated. Bank states that it was clearly mentioned in the e-auction notice that auction will be held for Flat No.T-2 in third floor of Sri Venkateshwara Residency, admeasuring 1380 square feet including common area together with undivided share of land of 36 square yards out of 502.20 square yards in Survey No.175, Uttam Nagar, Malkajgiri Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. (i) It is according to the bank that the property mentioned in the schedules are described in the eauction notice as per the recitals mentioned in the sale deed deposited by the borrower with it for securing housing loan, and there is no inconsistency in publication of the schedules. (i) It is according to the bank that the property mentioned in the schedules are described in the eauction notice as per the recitals mentioned in the sale deed deposited by the borrower with it for securing housing loan, and there is no inconsistency in publication of the schedules. (ii) It is further stated that in pursuance of the eauction notice, the petitioner, after going through the terms of the auction notice published in the newspaper which was also made available in the website ‘https://www.bankeauctions.com.’, has paid a sum of Rs.1,32,500/- (Rupees one lakh thirty two thousand and five hundred) towards 10% of the reserve price (Earnest Money Deposit) on 05-03-2015 through her Savings Bank Account No.172210100073535 of Andhra Bank, 1722, Balapur Cross-roads Branch, Hyderabad, and later on, after bidding price, the petitioner having become auction purchaser, paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) through RTGS from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, and, therefore, her contention that she came to purchase the property only after assurance of the Authorised Officer that he would sell the properties for Rs.11,32,500/- to her if no bidder comes forward in the auction is incorrect. (iii) It is according to the bank that the petitioner has inspected the property before the auction and having satisfied herself, she submitted bid for auction and, therefore, her statement that she was not invited for any inspection or participation in the auction is incorrect. The bank also states that since the petitioner was the highest bidder, it sent sale confirmation letter, dated 10-03-2015, informing her to pay balance amount of the bid i.e., Rs.3,67,500/-. The bank also states that the petitioner has read terms and conditions of the e-auction notice, signed the documents by duly submitting the KYC papers, participated in the auction and bid the same. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that the bank deliberately misrepresented the facts to her and induced her to pay Rs.11,32,500/- on 09-03-2015 is absolutely false. (iv) The bank also states that reserve price was fixed at Rs.13,50,000/- and the bid amount offered by the petitioner was Rs.15,00,000/-, for which, she paid Rs.11,32,500/- and, therefore, it has confirmed the sale in her favour accepting her bid and addressed letter, dated 10-03-2015, asking her to pay the balance amount within fifteen (15) days therefrom. The bank has also denied the allegation of the petitioner that worth of the property was not more than Rs.7,00,000/-. The bank has also denied the allegation of the petitioner that worth of the property was not more than Rs.7,00,000/-. According to it, no infringement of constitutional guarantee of the petitioner arises as it never induced her to deposit the amount by showing two separate properties. The writ petition is devoid of merits for consideration of this Court and, therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Reply affidavit to the counter is filed by the petitioner reiterating her earlier stand. Further facts mentioned by the petitioner are to the effect that having learnt that G. Yadagiri Rao (respondent No.2 - Authorised Officer) and two others induced her to buy the property, she lodged a complaint with Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station on 14-03-2015, and since the concerned Station House Officer refused to accept it, on 29-05-2015, she filed a private complaint under Section 190 read with 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri for referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., which was registered as C.C. (SR) No.1564 of 2015 and referred for investigation on 01-06-2015, but First Information Report was not registered by the Station House Officer. (i) Further, she refers to the names, G. Yadagiri Rao, Ramesh Babu and K. Nageshwara Rao, who are Chief Manager (Respondent No.2), Branch Manager and registered agent of the bank, respectively, with reference to her allegation that they informed her that there was no e-auction bidder, hence she can deposit a sum of Rs.1,32,500/- as E.M.D. i.e. 10% of Rs.13,25,000/- which she obliged and paid further sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs immediately. According to her, all three of them tried to play fraud on her stating that after receiving the letter addressed by her dated 11-03-2015, G. Yadagiri Rao, prepared a pre-dated letter, dated 10-03-2015, which was received by her on 13-03-2015 and verification of the postal cover reveals that registered letter was posted only on 13-03-2015, and, thus, it was clear that the letter was pre-dated. (ii) Lastly, she states that in case the bank forfeits 25% of the alleged bid amount, amounting to Rs.3,75,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.11,32,500/- paid by her, she would be put to irreparable loss and her dream to purchase a residential property of her own would be shattered. 5. (ii) Lastly, she states that in case the bank forfeits 25% of the alleged bid amount, amounting to Rs.3,75,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.11,32,500/- paid by her, she would be put to irreparable loss and her dream to purchase a residential property of her own would be shattered. 5. Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.V. Uma Shanker Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-bank, and perused the material on record. 6. At the outset, we would like to mention that the instant writ petition involves disputed questions of facts. 7. We have perused copies of notices for sale of immovable property in e-auction filed by the respective parties. The copy filed by the petitioner in the material papers at page No.16 when compared with the copy of the notice filed by the bank along with their counter finding place at page No.29 in their material papers, it is in variation with the said notice. After description of the properties of Schedule-A and Schedule-B, beneath the same, a ‘Note’ is found, which reads thus: “Note: The auction will be held for the Flat No. T-2, in 3rd Floor, Sri Venkateshwara Residency uttam nagar, Malkajgiri, R.R.Dist., Belonging to Late Atluri Ravi Shankar (1. Mrs. A. Satyavathi, W/o Late Atluri Ravi Shankar, 2. Master A. Dharma Teja, S/o Late Atluri Ravi Shankar, 3. Master A. Jaideep, S/o Late Atluri Ravi Shankar)” The said portion of ‘Note’ is not occurring in the photostat copy of the notice filed by the petitioner. According to the bank, the said ‘Note’ clearly indicates that auction will be held for Flat No.T-2 in third floor of Sri Venkateshwara Residency, Uttam nagar, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, learned counsel for the bank contends that there cannot be any ambiguity in describing the subject property which was kept for auction and in that view of the matter, the stand taken by the petitioner is wholly incorrect. The stand of the petitioner is that copy of e-auction notice for sale of immovable properties filed by her was, in fact, supplied by the bank, wherein column of ‘Note’ is not occurring. Thus, this controversy between the parties relates to a question of fact, which requires resolution. Likewise, the other grounds agitated by the petitioner; i. she did not participate in the auction at all; ii. Thus, this controversy between the parties relates to a question of fact, which requires resolution. Likewise, the other grounds agitated by the petitioner; i. she did not participate in the auction at all; ii. respondent No.2 wilfully and deliberately misrepresented and induced her to pay Rs.11,32,500/- on 09-03-2015; iii. she never uploaded her offer for bid in the website; iv. her local enquiry established that value of the flat was not more than Rs.7.00 lakh; v. borrower’s consent was mandatory in terms of Rules 8 (5) (d) and 8 (8) of the Rules 2002, for selling a secured asset under private treaty; and vi. there were no bidders and she was called on 09-03-2015 at 3.30 P.M. and induced her by respondent No.2 and two others to part with Rs.10.00 lakh that day, are all questions leading to factual aspect of her case. 8. There has been complete denial by the bank stating in their counter that the petitioner has initially deposited 10% of reserve price as per the terms and conditions of the e-auction notice, on 05-03-2015, and having participated in the bid as one of the bidders, becoming the highest bidder for the bid of Rs.15.00 lakhs, deposited Rs.10.00 lakhs on 09-03-2015 itself and, therefore, sale was confirmed in her favour requiring her to deposit the balance amount of Rs.3,67,500/-. It is also according to the bank that the other bidder, Sri Rongala Satyanarayana, quoted the bid at Rs.13,50,000/-. Concerning the alleged inducement, the bank strongly denied it. 9. Thus, there are disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved in this writ petition by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are also making it clear that we are not expressing anything on merits of the case. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under Section 17 of the Act, if she so chooses. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this petition, stand closed.