JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. 1. Four writ petitions involving similar issues are taken up for consideration analogously. 2. In all the four matters, the writ petitioner having participated in an auction conducted by a secured creditor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) wants the refund of the purchase price. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, The petitioner filed four several writ petitions being WP No. 9714(W) of 2016, WP No.9716(W) of 2016, WP No. 10166(W) of 2016 and WP No. 10168(W) of 2016 (Abdul Rouff v. UCO Bank & Ors.). The bank had assured the petitioner that the bank would refund the entire purchase price if the possession of the immovable property was not made over within three months by a writing dated June 27, 2016. The bank did not do so. Such writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated July 1, 2016 recording the assurance given by the Zonal Manager as reflected in the letter dated June 27, 2016 and expressing the hope and trust that, the Zonal Manager would act in terms of the assurance given in such letter. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, a period in excess of one year has lapsed from the date of the order being July 1, 2016. The petitioner is yet to receiver either the immovable property concerned or the refund of the purchase price. He submits that, the bank should be directed to refund the purchase price along with interest at the commercial rate. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the bank submits that, the bank had taken all possible steps for the purpose of obtaining actual physical possession of the property concerned to be delivered to the purchaser. It had approached the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Such application was not disposed of. The bank had approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing two several writ petitions. Such writ petitions were dispose of by an order dated September 18, 2017 directing the concerned District Magistrate to dispose of the application. Despite the best of the efforts and despite two hearings being taken by the concerned District Magistrate, the bank has not been provided any police assistance to take the physical possession of the immovable property concerned. Such writ petitions were dispose of by an order dated September 18, 2017 directing the concerned District Magistrate to dispose of the application. Despite the best of the efforts and despite two hearings being taken by the concerned District Magistrate, the bank has not been provided any police assistance to take the physical possession of the immovable property concerned. He seeks a further period of two months from date for the purpose of either making over of the possession of the immovable property or paying the purchase price to the petitioner. He submits that, pursuant to the observations made by the Court on the previous date of hearing, he is carrying four several pay orders covering the entire purchase price deposited by the petitioner. He submits that, the pay orders be directed not to be encashed for a period of two months from date in order to permit the bank to obtain actual physical possession of the property to make over the same to the purchaser. He submits that, the Court should take into consideration that, the public money is involved and the bank may not be able to obtain such price in respect of the immovable property concerned if it embarks upon a further sale. 5. The prayer for extension of time is opposed on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the bank should be held with its writing. The bank should also adhere to the hope and trust expressed by the Court in the order dated July 1, 2016. 6. I have considered the respective contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 7. The petitioner is the purchaser of the immovable properties put up for sale by the bank in exercise of powers under the Act of 2002. The petitioner wants refund of the purchase price as it has not been put in possession of the property purchased. By a writing dated June 27, 2016, the Zonal Manager of the bank had informed the petitioner that, the bank would make utmost effort to give peaceful possession of the properties within three months. The bank would refund the money in case actual physical possession of the properties cannot be given within such time. It appears that such writing was issued during the pendency of four several writ petitions filed by the petitioner. The bank would refund the money in case actual physical possession of the properties cannot be given within such time. It appears that such writing was issued during the pendency of four several writ petitions filed by the petitioner. Such writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated July 1, 2016 by recording the contents of the letter dated June 27, 2016 of the Zonal Manager of the bank. The Court had observed that, the Zonal Manager should act in terms of the assurance given in such letter. 8. A period in excess of one year has elapsed from the date of the order dated July 1, 2016. The petitioner is yet to receive the actual physical possession of the properties or the purchase price. Today, further time is sought for. In my view, the bank had sufficient time from July 1, 2016 to obtain actual physical possession of the property to be made over to the purchaser. It had also assured the petitioner that, in the event of default in making over actual physical possession of the immovable property within three months, it would refund the purchase price. It is on such assurance that, the four earlier writ petitions were disposed of by the Court. 9. In view of the failure of the bank to make over possession of the immovable properties concerned, the bank should, therefore, make over the entire purchase price received from the petitioner. 10. Learned Advocate for the bank is requested to make over the four pay orders to the learned Advocate-on-record for the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the bank does so in Court. 11. The petitioner is at liberty to en cash the proceeds of the pay order towards protanto satisfaction of its claims. So far as the other claims of the petitioner concerned including interest, the same are left open to be adjudicated upon by an appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 12. WP No. 28496(W) of 2017, WP No. 28498(W) of 2017, WP No. 28500(W) of 2017 and WP No. 28502(W) of 2017 are disposed of. 13. No order as to costs. 14. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.