JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioners prays for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent bank to give effect to the scheme for one time settlement notified by the respondent bank in so far as the petitioners are concerned and also for a writ of certiorari to quash the E-Auction notice dated 19 February, 2013 in respect of the property kept as security with the respondent bank. The case of the petitioners:- 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm of which the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are partners. 3. On 18 June, 2005 the respondent bank sanctioned a Cash Credit facility to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs in favour of the petitioners. As security for such facility the petitioners created equitable mortgage of a plot of land measuring 5 cottahs with a two storied building thereon situated at premises No. 19/2/1, Kalibari Lane, Kolkata-32. On 14 September 2006 the Cash Credit limit was increased to Rs. 30 lacs. On 13 February, 2008 the limit was further enhanced to Rs. 40 lacs. 4. Due to economic recession as also illness of the senior partner of the firm being the petitioner No. 3, the business of the firm suffered and the cash credit account of the petitioners held with the bank became irregular. A notice dated 3 June, 2009 was issued by the bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (in short the ‘SARFAESI Act’) intimating the petitioners that their debt has been classified as non-performing asset on 28 February, 2009 by reason of default committed by the petitioners in repayment of the principal sum and interest thereon. 5. A notice dated 13 November, 2009 was issued by the bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 44,82,574.53 plus interest failing which possession of the mortgaged property would be taken by the bank. The petitioners were unable to make the payment as demanded. The petitioner took symbolic possession of the said property on 11 February, 2010. 6. The Bank instituted an application under Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short the ‘RDB Act’) being OA No. 742 of 2010 claiming an amount of Rs. 51,01,501.43. The petitioner took symbolic possession of the said property on 11 February, 2010. 6. The Bank instituted an application under Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short the ‘RDB Act’) being OA No. 742 of 2010 claiming an amount of Rs. 51,01,501.43. The said application is still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short ‘DRT’) and the petitioners are contesting the same. 7. By a letter dated 3 April, 2012 issued by the Assistant General Manager, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, Calcutta, the petitioners were informed of a scheme for One Time Settlement, (OTS) of nonperforming assets in MSME Sector and that the petitioners were eligible to avail of the said scheme. In the said letter the amount due from the petitioners to the bank as on the date of NPA (i.e. 28.02.2009) was mentioned as Rs. 44,70,102.43 and the amount of OTS was mentioned as Rs. 44,68,742.43. The said letter required the petitioners to deposit 5 per cent of the amount outstanding as on the date of NPA along with the application for availing of the said scheme. 8. By a letter dated 15 June, 2012 the petitioners applied for a One Time Settlement of their debts to the bank and accepted the figure mentioned as outstanding in the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012. The petitioners also tendered two demand drafts aggregating Rs. 2,25,000/- towards 5 per cent of the outstanding as on the date of NPA as per the terms and conditions of the OTS Scheme. The said demand drafts were encashed by the bank on 14 September, 2012. 9. In the meantime, the bank issued a letter dated 21 June, 2012 to the petitioners stating that the amount outstanding as on the date of NPA was Rs. 44,81,214.43 and the amount of OTS was Rs. 59,00,265/-. This was completely at variance with the amounts stated in the bank’s letter date 3 April, 2012. 10. By their Advocate’s letter dated 24 September, 2012, the petitioners recorded their protest to the bank’s letter dated 21 June, 2012 in so far as the same was at variance from the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012 and accepted by the petitioners by their letter dated 15 June, 2012. There was no response to the said letter from the bank’s end. 11. There was no response to the said letter from the bank’s end. 11. Without processing the application of the petitioners for OTS, the bank issued a public notice dated 19 February, 2013 under the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 for E-Auction of the aforesaid property of the petitioners which was kept as security with the bank. The said notice wrongly mentioned the name of the petitioner No. 1 as ‘M/s. Nirmal Saha & Beyond’ instead of ‘M/s. Nirmal Naha & Beyond’. 12. The petitioners have challenged the said notice for E-Auction by filing the present writ petition. 13. The matter was taken up for hearing on 28 March, 2013 when after hearing the parties this court granted liberty to the party to consider the representation dated 24 September, 2012 sent to the bank by the Ld. Advocate of the petitioners. The decision of the bank was to be produced before this court on 17 April, 2013 when the matter was fixed for hearing. The bank was restrained from proceeding further to auction the secured asset in terms of the impugned notice dated 19 February, 2013. 14. On 16 April, 2013 Ld. Adv. appearing for the bank submitted before this court that the order dated 28 March, 2013 had been wrongly recorded. According to him, the court had directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the auction process but inadvertently, an order of injunction had been recorded to the effect that the bank shall not proceed to auction the secured asset in terms of the impugned notice. However, it was found that even status quo was not maintained by the respondent bank in respect of the secured asset and a sale certificate had been issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 28 March, 2013 at 4.45 p.m. This court recorded that the Authorised Officer of the bank was prima facie in contempt. He was asked to remain personally present in court on 18 April, 2013 to explain as to why and in what circumstances he had proceeded to issue sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser, assuming that an order of status quo, as submitted by the bank’s Ld. Advocate, and not an order of injunction, had been passed on 28 March, 2013. Advocate, and not an order of injunction, had been passed on 28 March, 2013. On 18 April, 2013, the respondent No. 1 appeared before this court and filed an affidavit sworn by him. His submission was that he had proceeded with the auction process on the basis of legal advice given by his Ld. Advocate. An interim order was passed restraining the bank from handing over the possession of the secured asset to the auction purchaser. 15. By an order dated 26 April, 2013, this court directed impleadment of the auction purchaser as an added respondent in the writ petition. 16. The matter next came up before this court on 2 May, 2013 when the court extended the interim order until further orders primarily on two grounds, namely (i) the bank did not dispose of the proposal for one time settlement before putting up the secured asset for auction sale although it was required to do so within 30 September, 2013 and (ii) the bank could not have unilaterally changed the one time settlement amount by citing an inadvertent mistake in the letter dated 3 April, 2013. The Court recorded its prima facie satisfaction that the bank had proceeded to dispose of the secured asset in a manner contrary to the principle of fairness. The court further recorded that hearing of the writ petition was initially adjourned to enable the bank’s Ld. Advocate to obtain instructions without passing any interim order and this was taken advantage of by the bank by proceeding with the auction when the court was in seisin of the controversy. 17. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bank could not have unilaterally altered the amount of OTS by issuing the letter dated 21 June, 2012. Further, no particulars of the alleged inadvertent mistake in calculating the OTS was ever furnished by the bank and the basis for enhancing the OTS amount from Rs. 44,68,742.43 to Rs. 59,00,265/- was never disclosed. He submitted that such act on the part of the bank was arbitrary and also in breach of the principles of natural justice, apart from being grossly unfair. 18. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the impugned notice dated 19 February, 2013 incorrectly mentions the name of the petitioner firm as ‘M/s. Nirmal Saha & Beyond’ and as such, the notice is ex facie bad in law and liable to be struck down. 19. Ld. 18. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the impugned notice dated 19 February, 2013 incorrectly mentions the name of the petitioner firm as ‘M/s. Nirmal Saha & Beyond’ and as such, the notice is ex facie bad in law and liable to be struck down. 19. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in terms of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the Authorised Officer is required to serve on the borrower a notice of 30 days for sale of the secured asset, but no such notice was served in the instant case thus vitiating the auction sale. 20. Ld. Counsel then submitted that different amounts have been shown as outstanding to the bank at different times. In the letter dated 3 April, 2012 the bank showed the amount of outstanding as on the date of NPA (28.02.2009) as Rs. 44,70,102.43 and amount of OTS as Rs. 44,68,742.43. The letter dated 21.06.2012 sent by the bank showed the outstanding amount as on the date of NPA as Rs. 44,81,214.43 and the OTS amount as Rs. 59,00,265/-. In the E-Auction notice dated 19.02.2013 published in the Bengali newspaper, the dues of the bank were shown as Rs. 41,56,214.43. Ld. Advocate submitted that the aforesaid inconsistency in the bank’s case renders its actions under the SARFAESI Act bad, illegal and liable to be set aside. 21. Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions in support of his case: (i) M/s. Shyam Ice & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank, reported in AIR 2012 ALL. 87 . In this case a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that where the proposal of the borrower for One Time Settlement is pending, initiation of recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is not permissible. It is only after the bank rejects the application for One Time Settlement, (or if accepted and the borrower does not comply with the terms of settlement) that the bank can proceed to recover its dues under the said Act. (ii) Shafique Ahmed v. State Bank of India, reported in AIR 2012 Patna 37. In this case, a Ld. Single Judge of the Patna High Court held that the proposal of the borrower for One Time Settlement was not processed by the bank nor any intimation was sent by the bank within the specified period. (ii) Shafique Ahmed v. State Bank of India, reported in AIR 2012 Patna 37. In this case, a Ld. Single Judge of the Patna High Court held that the proposal of the borrower for One Time Settlement was not processed by the bank nor any intimation was sent by the bank within the specified period. The borrower had accepted the letter sent by the bank with regard to OTS and had also deposited the sum of Rs. 1 lac. In such circumstances, the bank could not take benefit of its own fault and claim money beyond what was specified under the OTS scheme. (iii) Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Others, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 367 . In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 empowers the RBI, on it being satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest or in the interest of depositors or banking policy so to do, to determine the policy in relation to advances to be followed by the banking companies generally or by any banking company in particular and when the policy has been so determined, it has a binding effect. In particular, the RBI may give directions as to the rate of interest and other terms and conditions on which advances or other financial accommodation may be made. Such directions are binding on every banking company. Section 35A of the said Act empowers the RBI in the public interest or in the interest of the banking policy or in the interest of depositors to issue directions generally or in particular, which shall be binding. RBI directives have not only statutory flavour, any contravention thereof or any default in compliance therewith is punishable under Section 46(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The court can act on an assumption that transactions or dealings have taken place and accounts have been maintained by banks in conformity with RBI directives. (iv) J. Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 651 . In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610 and held that the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 are mandatory in nature. (iv) J. Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 651 . In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610 and held that the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 are mandatory in nature. The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that the provision contained in Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is specifically for the protection of the borrowers inasmuch as, ownership of the secured asset is a constitutional right vested in the borrowers and protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the creditor should ensure that the borrower was clearly put on notice of the date and time on which the sale will be effected in order to provide the required opportunity to the borrower to take all possible steps for retrieving his property. In the facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the sale of the secured asset was null and void as being in violation of the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules 8 and 9 of the 2002 Rules. (v) M/s. Sardar Associates v. Punjab & Sindh Bank, reported in AIR 2010 SC 218 . In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the respondent bank being a public sector bank, it was bound by the RBI guidelines including the scheme for OTS. It was further observed that the Appellate Tribunal has the requisite jurisdiction to consider the prayer made by a debtor for One Time Settlement in view of the fact that the same is within the purview of One Time Settlement Scheme of the RBI. If a public sector bank is otherwise bound by any guidelines issued by the RBI, there can be no reason as to why the same cannot be enforced in terms of the Act by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. 22. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing of the notice for E-Auction and for setting aside of the sale of the secured asset effected by the bank pursuant to the said auction notice. Contention of the respondent-bank:- 23. Ld. 22. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing of the notice for E-Auction and for setting aside of the sale of the secured asset effected by the bank pursuant to the said auction notice. Contention of the respondent-bank:- 23. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that it is not in dispute that Cash Credit Facility was granted by the bank to the petitioners, initially for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs which was increased, subsequently, to Rs. 40 lacs. Due to non-payment of the bank’s dues, the loan account of the petitioners was classified as NPA on 28 February, 2009. Accordingly, notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the bank on 3 June, 2009 calling upon the petitioners to pay the dues of the bank. Upon the failure of the petitioners to make payment, notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was issued on 13 November, 2009 and symbolic possession of the secured asset was taken by the bank on 11 February, 2010. 24. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Original Application filed by the bank before the DRT under Section 19 of the RDB Act is pending. If the petitioners have any grievance in connection with the loan obtained from the bank, it is the DRT which is the appropriate forum for ventilating such grievance. The petitioners are contesting the said Original Application and as such this court should not entertain the present writ petition. 25. It was then submitted that by letter dated 3 April, 2012 the bank informed the petitioners regarding the OTS-MSME 2012 Scheme but while doing so, due to bona fide mistake, the bank authority mentioned an incorrect OTS amount which was much less than the actual OTS amount. Subsequently, by the letter dated 21 June, 2012 the bank intimated the petitioner of the correct OTS amount. The petitioners are trying to encash on this bona fide mistake on the part of the bank. This, the petitioners should not be permitted to do. In this connection Ld. Counsel relied on a Division Bench decision of this court delivered in APO No. 431 of 2014 (Reserve Bank of India v. Rajib Munsi). 26. Ld. The petitioners are trying to encash on this bona fide mistake on the part of the bank. This, the petitioners should not be permitted to do. In this connection Ld. Counsel relied on a Division Bench decision of this court delivered in APO No. 431 of 2014 (Reserve Bank of India v. Rajib Munsi). 26. Ld. Counsel for the bank submitted that the petitioners were informed of the correct OTS amount much before the last date for availing of the OTS Scheme i.e. 31 July, 2012. With full knowledge of the correct OTS amount, the petitioners insisted on the bank accepting the incorrect amount erroneously stated in the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012. This conduct of the petitioners is dishonest and mala-fide. In this connection Ld. Counsel referred to a letter dated 6 September, 2012 written by the bank to the petitioners wherein the bank stated that an incorrect OTS amount was mentioned in the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012 due to inadvertent mistake and called upon the petitioners to convey their acceptance of the correct OTS amount within 15 days and in case the bank did not hear from the petitioners, the drafts received for the sum of Rs. 2.25 lacs would be credited to the petitioners’ loan account for reducing their total dues to the bank. 27. Since the petitioners did not accept the correct OTS amount, a thirty days’ notice dated 14 February, 2013 for sale of the secured asset was served on the petitioners in terms of the SARFAESI Act read with Rules 6 to 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The notice was received by the petitioners on 19 February, 2013. Hence, the petitioners’ contention that the thirty days’ sale notice was not served on them is incorrect and dishonest. 28. On 15 March, 2013 the bank received an offer on behalf of the added respondent for purchase of the property in question. After complying with all formalities the said property was sold to the added respondent on 22 March, 2013 and upon receiving full payment the bank issued sale certificate on 28 March, 2013. However, possession of the said property is withheld by the bank in view of the interim order dated 2 May, 2013 passed by this court. 29. Ld. After complying with all formalities the said property was sold to the added respondent on 22 March, 2013 and upon receiving full payment the bank issued sale certificate on 28 March, 2013. However, possession of the said property is withheld by the bank in view of the interim order dated 2 May, 2013 passed by this court. 29. Ld. Counsel relied on a decision of this court in the case of Bishnu Devi Shaw v. The Federal Bank Ltd. reported in (2014) 2 WBLR (Cal) 932. In the said case, this court held in the context of the SARFAESI Act that once the sale of the secured property is confirmed and sale certificate is issued, the right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage is lost. This court relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishun v. State of UP, AIR 2012 SC 2288 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that once the sale has been confirmed it cannot be set aside unless a fundamental procedural error has occurred or sale certificate had been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. 30. Ld. Counsel finally submitted that the bank has acted strictly in accordance with law in selling the secured asset. The petitioners are merely trying to take undue advantage of an inadvertent mistake on the part of the bank. If the petitioners’ writ application is allowed, public interest will suffer as public money will be lost. The Ld. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Contention of the added respondent:- 31. Ld. Counsel for the added respondent submitted that the added respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value of the property in question. He purchased the property in auction after scrutinising all documents, records, papers etc. There is no fundamental error or fraud in the sale process which would warrant annulling the sale in favour of the added respondent. 32. It was submitted that pursuant to the E-Auction notice dated 19 February, 2013, the added respondent participated in the bidding process and emerged as the highest bidder. On 28 March, 2013, the added respondent paid Rs. 96,60,000/- to the bank and the bank issued sale certificate in favour of the added respondent. 33. 32. It was submitted that pursuant to the E-Auction notice dated 19 February, 2013, the added respondent participated in the bidding process and emerged as the highest bidder. On 28 March, 2013, the added respondent paid Rs. 96,60,000/- to the bank and the bank issued sale certificate in favour of the added respondent. 33. By the letter dated 6 September, 2012 the bank in effect rejected the application of the petitioners for availing of the OTS Scheme since the petitioners were not agreeable to accept the correct OTS amount as intimated to them by the bank’s letter dated 21 June, 2012. This letter was suppressed in the writ petition. It was only after the bank referred to the said letter in its affidavit in opposition, that the petitioners annexed a copy thereof to the affidavit in reply. Thus, the petitioners attempted to suppress material facts and on that ground alone the writ petition should be dismissed. 34. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel that the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. The right of redemption is available to the mortgagor before the date of confirmation of sale. Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act has also made such provision. Such right of redemption gets extinguished as soon as the sale transaction is completed. Such a sale cannot be set aside in the absence of the petitioners making out a case of fraud or fundamental procedural error in the sale process. The petitioners have not made out any such case. The petitioners have chosen to file a writ petition, by passing the regular statutory remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. This should not be permitted. In this connection Ld. Counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413 . Ld. Counsel also referred to and relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Transcore v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2007 SC 712 in support of his contention that the remedies under the SARFAESI Act and the DRT Act are complementary to each other and therefore, the doctrine of election has no application. Counsel also referred to and relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Transcore v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2007 SC 712 in support of his contention that the remedies under the SARFAESI Act and the DRT Act are complementary to each other and therefore, the doctrine of election has no application. The SARFAESI Act provides remedies to the banks and financial institutions which are in addition to remedies provided by the DRT Act. Hence, a creditor-bank/financial institution is entitled to proceed against a defaulting borrower simultaneously under both the Acts. 35. Relying on the aforesaid submission Ld. Counsel for the added respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Court’s View:- 36. The moot question that falls for determination in this case is whether or not the E-Auction notice was validly issued by the bank in the facts and circumstances of the case. 37. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners enjoyed Cash Credit Facility granted by the respondent bank. It is also not disputed that as on the date when the writ petitioners’ account was declared as NPA, the sanctioned limit of the cash credit account stood at Rs. 40 lacs. It is also an admitted fact that the writ petitioners defaulted in payment of interest and principal amount. The decision of the bank to declare the concerned account of the writ petitioners as NPA is not under challenge. 38. In its letter dated 3 April, 2012 whereby the bank informed the writ petitioners of the OTS Scheme, the OTS amount was mentioned as Rs. 44,68,742.43. The writ petitioners accepted such figure and applied for One Time Settlement of their dues under the said Scheme and tendered two demand drafts for an aggregate sum of Rs. 2.25 lacs as required by the terms and conditions of the OTS Scheme. This was done by the petitioners under cover of a letter dated 15 June, 2012. 39. The bank did not encash the demand drafts immediately but, instead by a letter dated 21 June, 2012 informed the petitioners that the OTS amount was Rs. 59,00,265/. It is the contention of the petitioners that once the petitioner acted on the basis of the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012, accepting the OTS amount mentioned therein, it was not open to the bank to unilaterally increase the OTS amount. 59,00,265/. It is the contention of the petitioners that once the petitioner acted on the basis of the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012, accepting the OTS amount mentioned therein, it was not open to the bank to unilaterally increase the OTS amount. The petitioners further contended that no particulars in support of enhancing the OTS amount have been disclosed by the bank and as such the bank is not entitled to insist that the petitioners must accept the OTS amount mentioned in the bank’s letter dated 21 June, 2012. 40. The petitioners contended that without disposing of the application for OTS, the bank could not have proceeded under the SARFAESI Act by issuing the sale notice. What the petitioners did not disclose in their writ petition is that the bank wrote a letter dated 6 September, 2012 to the petitioners which was as follows:- “Further to your letters and your visits to this Branch in connection with above, we would like to reiterate that the OTS amount advised to you vide our letter number SARB/SBI OTS MSME 2012/6/SLC dated 03.04.2012 had undergone a change owing to proper classification of the NPA as per RBI guidelines. We, therefore, advised you the correct OTS amount of Rs. 59,00,265/- vide our letter No. SARB/SBI OTS MSME 2012/7/SLC/81 dated 21/06/2012. We once again sincerely regret this inadvertent mistake. 2. Kindly, therefore, convey your acceptance or otherwise within 15 days from the date of this letter. In case we do not hear from you in the matter, the drafts since received from you for Rs. 225000/- (Rs. Two lacs twenty five thousand only) will be credited to your loan account for reducing your total dues to the bank.” 41. In my opinion, the aforesaid letter must be understood as the bank stating that if the petitioners did not accept the OTS figure of Rs. 59,00,265/- within 15 days from the date of the said letter, the petitioners’ OTS application would stand rejected and the amount of Rs. 2.25 lacs would be counted as not part of the OTS but would be credited to the loan account for reducing the petitioners’ liability to the bank. The petitioners did not accept the OTS amount of Rs. 59,00,265/-. Instead they sent a lawyer’s notice dated 24 September, 2012 to the bank insisting on a One Time Settlement in terms of the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012. The petitioners did not accept the OTS amount of Rs. 59,00,265/-. Instead they sent a lawyer’s notice dated 24 September, 2012 to the bank insisting on a One Time Settlement in terms of the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012. 42. I am of the view that the petitioners are trying to take undue advantage of what appears to be a computational error in the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012. Much before the last date for submission of the application under the OTS Scheme i.e. 31 July, 2012, the bank by its letter dated 21 June, 2012 informed the petitioners of the computational error in the bank’s letter dated 3 April, 2012. There is nothing on record to show that upon receipt of the letter dated 21 June, 2012, the petitioners approached the respondent bank for clarification or for discussion to understand the basis on which the OTS amount stood enhanced to Rs. 59 lacs from Rs. 44 lacs. In the letter dated 11 August, 2012 written by the petitioners to the Bank (page 44 of the petition), there is not even a mention of the bank’s letter dated 21 June, 2012. There is only a mention of the said letter in the petitioner’s Advocate letter dated 24 September, 2012. It is also significant that the bank’s letter dated 6 September, 2012 was brought on record by the petitioners only upon the bank mentioning such letter in its affidavit-in-opposition. The said letter had been suppressed in the writ petition and, according to me, this was a material suppression. 43. As regards the petitioners’ contention of failure on the bank’s part to issue 30 days’ notice for sale of the secured asset, the same appears to be factually incorrect. Pursuant to the court’s query, the bank’s Ld. Advocate has filed a copy of a notice dated 14 February, 2013 which clearly mentions that in case of non-payment of the entire dues of the bank, on the expiry of 30 days’ from the date of the notice, the secured asset would be sold by public auction (E-Auction) to be held on 22.03.2013 as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The bank has also filed duly signed Acknowledgement Due card which evidences receipt of the said notice by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners’ contention regarding non-service of 30 days’ sale notice is rejected. 44. The bank has also filed duly signed Acknowledgement Due card which evidences receipt of the said notice by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners’ contention regarding non-service of 30 days’ sale notice is rejected. 44. The respondent bank deals with and is the custodian of public money. It is answerable to the public at large for the manner in which it handles the money at its disposal. It lends money to members of public who are in need of loan. Such borrowers are obliged to pay interest on such loans regularly and to repay the principal amount within the agreed period of time. The bank does not have an unlimited amount of money at its disposal. It should be free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law against the defaulting borrowers to recover the moneys lent along with the applicable rate of interest. Indeed the bank is obliged to do so and if it does not do so it will be not in a position to grant financial accommodation to deserving people. In my opinion, too many fetters must not put on the steps that the banks and financial institutions take to recover moneys from the defaulting borrowers. With a view to protecting the borrowers, if the banks and financial institutions are restrained from taking steps for recovery of the moneys lent and advanced at the drop of a hat, the result would be counter-productive. However, needless to say, that the steps taken by the banks and financial institutions must be within the four corners of law and not arbitrary. 45. In my opinion, as stated above, the effect of the bank’s letter dated 6 September, 2012 and the failure of the petitioners to agree with the OTS amount of Rs. 59,00,265/- within 15 days from the date of such letter, resulted in rejection of the petitioners’ OTS application. Thereafter, the bank issued 30 days sale notice and conducted the sale on 22 March, 2013. Apparently the bank followed the procedure contemplated by the SARFAESI Act and it cannot be faulted on that account. As such, the authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners in support of the contention that before disposing of the application for OTS Scheme, the bank cannot take coercive measures under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, have no manner of application to the facts of the present case. 46. As such, the authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners in support of the contention that before disposing of the application for OTS Scheme, the bank cannot take coercive measures under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, have no manner of application to the facts of the present case. 46. As regards the petitioners submission that the sale notice wrongly mentioned the name of the petitioners as ‘M/s. Nirmal Saha & Beyond’ in my opinion, such error in no way misled anybody concerned. The property in question being the secured asset was correctly described in the notice for E-Auction. Further a corrigendum appears to have been published correcting the name of the petitioners. I find no substance in this contention of the petitioners and the same is rejected. 47. The only point against the bank appears to be that in spite of this court having passed an interim order dated 28 March, 2013 in the presence of the bank’s Ld. Advocate restraining the bank from proceeding with the auction of the secured asset, a sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 28 March, 2013 at 4.45 p.m. i.e. after the restraint order was passed. However, I have gone through the affidavit of explanation affirmed on 18 April 2013 by the Authorised Officer of the Stressed Asset Recovery Branch of the respondent bank and I am satisfied that the sale certificate was issued by him before the restraint order passed by this court was communicated to him by his Ld. Advocate. It is categorically stated in paragraph 10 of the said affidavit that on 28 March, 2013 at about 17.30 hrs. the bank official came to know from their Ld. Advocate about the restraint order passed by this court. Hence, it appears that at the time of issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser, the authorised officer of the respondent bank had no knowledge of the restraint order. 48. A further point that appears to weigh against the petitioners is that once the sale of the secured property is confirmed and sale certificate is issued, as in the instant case, right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage is lost. 48. A further point that appears to weigh against the petitioners is that once the sale of the secured property is confirmed and sale certificate is issued, as in the instant case, right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage is lost. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of this court in the case of Bishnu Devi Shaw v. The Federal Bank Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishu v. The State of UP (supra). 49. I cannot also be unmindful of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (supra). In the said decision it was observed that any person having any tangible grievance against a notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act or action taken under Section 14 thereof, could avail of the remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the said Act. Both the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. The remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc, the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and the State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a Code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing of remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards citizens. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have seriously adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. 50. From the aforesaid discussion what emerges, according to me, is that the bank does not appear to have acted without jurisdiction or in breach of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of making an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act since they are already contesting the Original Application filed by the bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its dues. Whether or not the bank was justified in claiming Rs. 59 lacs as the OTS amount instead of the sum of Rs. 44 lacs can be adjudicated before the said Tribunal and whether or not the action taken by the bank in selling the secured asset was in accordance with law can also be adjudicated by the said Tribunal. 51. In view of the aforesaid I am not inclined to pass any order on this application. This application accordingly fails and is dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of 3 weeks from date praying for appropriate reliefs, if they are entitled to do so in law and in the facts of the case. If so approached, the Ld. Tribunal shall decide the issues without being influenced by any observation made in this order or in any of the interim orders passed on this writ application. Since, the interim order restraining the bank from handing over possession of the property in question to the added respondent has been continuing for a long time, let such order continue for a further period of three weeks from date. 52. WP No. 7847 (W) of 2013 along with CAN No. 4052 of 2015 is accordingly disposed of. 53. Since, the interim order restraining the bank from handing over possession of the property in question to the added respondent has been continuing for a long time, let such order continue for a further period of three weeks from date. 52. WP No. 7847 (W) of 2013 along with CAN No. 4052 of 2015 is accordingly disposed of. 53. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.