JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Ms. P. Mog, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the bank respondents. 2. Both the writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.434 of 2017 [Ajit Lal Roy vs. Tripura Gramin Bank & Others] and W.P.(C) No.435 of 2017 [Sanjit Lal Roy vs. Tripura Gramin Bank & Others] are taken up today since a similar question wades through these petitions. 3. The admitted position of fact is that there was a substantive outstanding in the loan account of the pro-respondent No.5 [in both the writ petitions]. The writ petitioners namely Sanjit Lal Roy and Ajit Lal Roy stood guarantor against the said loan. As the borrower failed to repay the outstanding, the bank authority following the process of law had taken possession of the securitised property belonging the writ petitions in terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, when the bank failed to recover the money in ordinary course, they published the auction notice on 07.02.2017 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. Detailed description of the securitised properties was provided in the said notice. The said auction was carried out under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Surprisingly, both the petitioners participated in the auction and filed their bid. 4. The petitioners had quoted the rate against their own property which was securitised against the said loan. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.434 of 2017 quoted the rate @ Rs.10,04,000/- whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.435 of 2017 quoted the rate @ 10,08,000/. The proforma-respondent No.4 being the highest bidder quoted the rate @ Rs.17,00,000.00/- against the securitised property of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.435 of 2017 whereas the respondent No.4 quoted the rate @ Rs.12,50,000/against the securitised property of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.434 of 2017. 5. It is also an admitted position as Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the bank respondents has acceded that the respondent No.4 opted out and he did not deposit the amount that is required to be deposited 25% of the quoted rate within 24 hours under the terms and conditions of the auction. As fallout thereof, the bids of the petitioners were supposed to be accepted by the Tripura Gramin Bank as the next highest bid. 6. As fallout thereof, the bids of the petitioners were supposed to be accepted by the Tripura Gramin Bank as the next highest bid. 6. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondent bank did not accept their money despite they had approached the bank and that too without assigning any reason. Being aggrieved, they have approached this court by filing these writ petitions. On 11.04.2017, this court had passed the following order: “Ms. P. Mog, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner shall take instruction from the petitioner whether he would be able to deposit 25% of the call money by 24 hours from the date of passing the order and the remaining amount by another 15 days from the said order meaning 100% of the quoted rate shall be paid to the bank by 15 days.” It has been further directed by the said order as under: “Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has appeared for the bank respondents and has tentatively observed that the bank will have no objection if the money is paid within the stipulated date. In the meanwhile the status quoin respect of the auction shall be maintained.” 7. Today Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the bank respondents has contended in presence of the authorised Officer of the said bank namely Nibaran Rupini that if the entire quoted amount is paid within 15(fifteen) days, the bank will accept that money and they will not have any difficulty in restituting the possession of the land to the petitioners immediately after the payment is made. All liens shall also be discharged if the outstanding is entirely liquidated. 8. Ms. P. Mog, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are also ready to deposit the entire quoted amount within 15(fifteen) days from today in the bank, subject to condition that immediately their possession shall be restored with necessary redemption. 9. All liens shall also be discharged if the outstanding is entirely liquidated. 8. Ms. P. Mog, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are also ready to deposit the entire quoted amount within 15(fifteen) days from today in the bank, subject to condition that immediately their possession shall be restored with necessary redemption. 9. Having regard to the statements made by the petitioners and the bank respondents, this court is of the view that these petitions can be disposed of with the following direction: The petitioners shall deposit the entire quoted amount to Tripura Gramin Bank within 15(fifteen) days from today and if such amount is paid by the petitioners within the stipulated time, the bank respondents shall restore the possession of the respective land of the petitioners, description of which are reproduced hereunder followed by redemption if the outstanding is wholly liquidated: Name & address of the owner of the properties Details of immovable properties Sri Sanjit Lal Roy, S/o, Sri Mohan Lal Roy, Bankumari (Sahapara), P.O. Jogendranagar, Agartala, Dist. West Tripura (3) Dist-West Tripura, P.S. East Agartala, Sub-Division-Agartala, Sub-Registry office-Sadar, Agartala, Mouja-Jogendranagar, T.K. Jogendranagar, measurement of land 0.050 acres, Deed No. 1-3466 dated 24/6/1998 Khatian No. 2856 Dag No.15987 (present), Land along with constructed house on the land located at Bankumari Bazar (Sahapara) Sri Ajit Lal Roay, S/o, Sri Mohan Lal Roy, Bankumari (Sahapara) P.O. Jogendranagar, Agartala, Dist. West Tripura (4) Dist-West Tripura, P.S. East Agartala, Sub-Division-Agartala, Sub-Registry office-Sadar, Agartala, Mouja-Jogendranagar, T.K. Jogendranagar, measurement of land 2160 sq.ft., Deed No.111756 dated 27/11/2006 Khatian No. 42 Dag No. 15977 (present), the Land along with homestead/house standing over there at Sahapara 10. If it is found on adjustment of the account that the respondent bank has received more money beyond their demand, the remainder of money shall be returned to the petitioners. In the event, the bank finds that after adjustment they are entitled to recover some more money from the petitioners, they may proceed in accordance with law, even if the land described above be restituted to the petitioners namely Sanjit Lal Roy in W.P.(C) No.435 of 2017 and Ajit Lal Roy in W.P.(C) No.434 of 2017. In the above terms, the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.435 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.434 of 2017 are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. In the above terms, the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.435 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.434 of 2017 are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties for doing their needful.