JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Shri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ankit Saran learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri U.N. Khare for auction purchaser-respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 5 is the wife of petitioner, who is stated to be owner of the disputed property which has been mortgaged with the bank and will be mentioned as the ‘secured asset’ hereinafter. 2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad as well as the order dated 9.2.2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Allahabad in the Securitisation Application No. 240 of 2014 (Sanjeev Kumar Porwal v. State Bank of India, Jalaun and others). The order dated 24.9.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun namely respondent No. 3 is also being challenged in the present petition. 3. Brief facts relevant to decide the controversy are that the petitioner namely Sanjeev Kumar Porwal, the Proprietor of ‘M/s Maa Vaishno Traders, Naveen Galla Mandi, Jalaun, had taken a cash credit limit facility to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs from the State Bank of India, Jalaun and had mortagaged his House No. 69, a residential house measuring 894.98 Sq. Ft., as a collateral security. 4. It appears that there was default in repayment of loan and as such the demand notice dated 11.5.2012 was served upon the petitioner demanding an amount of Rs. 20,96,600/-. Since no payment was made by the petitioner, the respondent bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’). The notice under Section 13(2) dated 20.9.2012 demanding an amount of Rs. 21,64,074 alongwith interest was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25.10.2012 raising certain objections to the said notice. 5. It appears that the possession notice under Section 13(4) read with Section 8(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 24.12.2012. E-auction notice dated 14.10.2013 was issued by the bank, the reserved price fixed in the auction scheduled on 17.11.2013 was Rs. 20 lacs. 6. At this stage, the petitioner/borrower filed a securitization Application No. 2014 of 2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 7. E-auction notice dated 14.10.2013 was issued by the bank, the reserved price fixed in the auction scheduled on 17.11.2013 was Rs. 20 lacs. 6. At this stage, the petitioner/borrower filed a securitization Application No. 2014 of 2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 7. During the pendency of the said application, the compromise was arrived between the bank and the borrower/petitioner wherein the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 22,25,127/- with simple interest @ Rs. 10% w.e.f. 14.11.2013 within a period of 12 months. 8. The Securitisation Application No. 2014 of 2013 was decided in terms of the compromise after the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lacs with the bank to show his bona fide. 9. It is admitted to the petitioner that on account of some personal difficulty he could not repay the entire debt and there was default in repayment of outstanding dues as per the compromise dated 23.11.2013. 10. The bank had, therefore, proceeded to publish another E-auction notice dated 28.2.2014 wherein reserved price was fixed to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs. However, no auction was held. After approximately two months, another e-auction notice dated 7.4.2014 was issued by the bank wherein reserved price was fixed to the tune of Rs. 14.48 lacs and the scheduled date fixed for auction was 8.5.2014. The auction could not be held on the said date. Third auction notice dated 1.6.2014 was issued fixing reserved price of Rs. 14.48 lacs and auction was scheduled on 4.7.2014 when it was held and the secured asset was auctioned in favour of respondent No. 4 being the highest bidder. 11. At this stage, the Securitisaion Application No. 240 of 2014 was filed on 4.7.2014 challenging the auction held by the bank. During pendency of the said application, auction has been confirmed by the bank and the sale certificate has been issued on 3.9.2014. 12. Before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, two objections were taken by the petitioner/borrower with regard to the auction held on 4.7.2014. First objection of the petitioner was with regard to the reserved price of Rs. 14.48 lacs fixed by the bank. It was contended by the petitioner that the secured asset being property worth Rs. 60 lacs was sold by the bank at a throwaway price of Rs. 14.48 lacs. First objection of the petitioner was with regard to the reserved price of Rs. 14.48 lacs fixed by the bank. It was contended by the petitioner that the secured asset being property worth Rs. 60 lacs was sold by the bank at a throwaway price of Rs. 14.48 lacs. Second objection was with regard to non-compliance of the Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (in short ‘the Rule 2002’) while proceeding the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 13. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has recorded that in support of the submission or to contradict the reserved price fixed by the bank, no independent valuer’s report was submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, the bank had submitted its valuer’s report dated 4.7.2013 which was the basis of fixing the reserved price of the secured asset in the auction held on 4.7.2014. 14. In so far as the objections with regard to non-compliance of Rule 8(6) of the Rule, 2002 is concerned, the findings are that the bank has placed on record the notice dated 2.6.2014 as also the proof of dispatch of the same. The correctness of the address given in the said notice which was sent through registered post, was not disputed by the petitioner. 15. With the aforesaid findings, the Securitisation Application No. 240 of 2014 was dismissed vide order dated 9.2.2016. In appeal, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal had affirmed the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal on both counts. 16. It appears that after the matter was decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 9.2.2016 and confirmation of auction sale, an application dated 14.7.2016 was filed by the bank before the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai seeking possession of the secured asset under Section 14(2) of the Act. This application has been decided vide order dated 24.9.2016 which is being challenged in the present petition. 17. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 had not been challenged in the pending appeal. The said order is being challenged for the first time in the present petition after dismissal of the appeal. 18. Challenging the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner is always ready and willing to repay the entire debt. The said order is being challenged for the first time in the present petition after dismissal of the appeal. 18. Challenging the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner is always ready and willing to repay the entire debt. The representation moved by the petitioner under Section 13 (3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was not decided by the bank at any point of time. The proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 could not have been undertaken during pendency of the representation under Section 13 (3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 19. It is further submitted that in terms of the compromise, the petitioner was required to repay the entire debt within a period of 12 months i.e by the end of November 2014. It was, therefore, not open for the bank to proceed for auction before expiry of the said period. 20. This apart, there was a clear-cut violation of the requirements of Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 2002. A valuable property belonging to the petitioner’s wife was sold by the bank at a throwaway price of Rs. 14.48 lacs that too when the bank itself had reserved its price to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs in the E-auction notice issued on 28.2.2014. 21. However, as to the findings of the Debt Recovery Tribunal with regard to the fact that independent valuer’s report was not submitted by the petitioner and that the E-auction notice dated 2.6.2014 was sent through Registered Post at the correct address, no contention could be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 22. It is lastly contended that the District Magistrate has erred in proceeding with the application filed by the bank in absence of it being supported by an affidavit. Proviso to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been placed to impress upon the Court that the said application was not maintainable in absence of an affidavit. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the orders impugned for the reasoning given therein. It is contended that the proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 had become final between the parties with the disposal of the Securitisaiton Application No. 2014 of 2013 in terms of the compromise arrived on 23.11.2013. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the orders impugned for the reasoning given therein. It is contended that the proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 had become final between the parties with the disposal of the Securitisaiton Application No. 2014 of 2013 in terms of the compromise arrived on 23.11.2013. As per the terms of the said compromise in case of second default on the part of the borrower, it was open for the bank to proceed with the coercive process to realise the outstanding dues. The bank has proceeded in terms of the compromise and the auction was held after due service of notice upon the petitioner. 24. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the submissions of petitioner on the merits of the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner has not been able to place any valuer’s report before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to dispute the reserved price fixed by the bank. 25. In so far as the process undertaken by the bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 upto the stage of Section 13(4) is concerned, no plausible objection could be taken by the petitioner for the reason that he had entered into the compromise on 23.11.2013 with the conditions mentioned therein. Once the petitioner had entered into the compromise with open eyes giving an idea that he would repay the entire outstanding dues of the bank as per the Schedule mentioned therein, in case of any violation or default thereof, it was open for the bank to proceed. 26. The objections taken with regard to the non-compliance of Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 2002 cannot been entertained for the findings recorded by both the Authorities that the bank had produced the notice and the proof of dispatch thereof which prove that the said notice was sent through registered post at the correct address. As 30 days notice was received by him, only option left with the petitioner was to repay the entire outstanding amount prior to the date of auction i.e. 4.7.2014. As this has not been done, this Court cannot take any exception to the steps taken by the bank for auction of the secured asset. 27. As 30 days notice was received by him, only option left with the petitioner was to repay the entire outstanding amount prior to the date of auction i.e. 4.7.2014. As this has not been done, this Court cannot take any exception to the steps taken by the bank for auction of the secured asset. 27. In so far as the objections taken by the petitioner for reduction of reserved price from 20 lacs to 14.48 lacs is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the bank has notified the said reserved price of Rs. 20 lacs in two previous auctions published by it. As no one came forward and it was a distress sale, the bank had to reduce the reserved price which was done in accordance with the valuer’s report. The said report was brought on record and has been examined both by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. No exception could be taken by the petitioner on the said report of the valuer submitted by the bank. 28. Insofar as the orders passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESIAct, 2002 is concerned, suffice is to note that the said order has been passed after dismissal of the Securitization Application vide order dated 9.2.2016 and determination of dispute relating to the default in repayment of loan by the borrower; that the borrower has created security interest over the disputed property; steps taken under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the Bank and disposal of all objections taken by the petitioner with regard to the steps taken by the bank during the process. The affidavit which is required to be filed by the Bank under proviso to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is needed to ascertain all the abovenoted aspects of the matter prior to determination of dispute under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Whereas in the instant case, after determination of the dispute by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the borrower did not handover possession of the secured assets; it appears that in the said circumstance, the District Magistrate has proceeded to pass order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Whereas in the instant case, after determination of the dispute by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the borrower did not handover possession of the secured assets; it appears that in the said circumstance, the District Magistrate has proceeded to pass order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. As the dispute relating to the default and steps taken by the Bank/secured creditor has already been brought to an end, the objections taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the procedure adopted by the District Magistrate, while passing the order of securing possession of the secured asset cannot be entertained. Reference made to the judgements of this Court in Shiv Charan Lal Sharma v. Allahabad Bank, A.M.U. Branch Aligarh and others, 2015(5) ADJ 121 , as also in Writ Petition No. 7523 of 2018 (M/S Bhagwati Grah Udhyog (Indore) and another v. Authorised Officer, Bank of Maharashtra and others) are misplaced. 29. Further reliance is placed upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishun and others v. State of U.P. and others in Civil Appeal No. 6204 of 2009 to submit that in any case, the purpose of sale conducted by the Authority is to fetch maximum price of the property. The law requires that for sale of the attached property valuation report is to be obtained and the authority shall fix the reserved price by application of mind. Even a confirmed sale can be set aside by the Court/tribunal on the ground of material irregularity or fraud. Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and taking note of paragraph ‘19’of the said judgement, this Court finds that petitioner has not been able to make out a case of material irregularity or fraud before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or before this Court so as to set aside the auction sale. (Ref: Para 19). “19. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that law requires a proper valuation report, its acceptance by the authority concerned by application of mind and then fixing the reserve price accordingly and acceptance of the auction bid taking into consideration that there was no possibility of collusion of the bidders. (Ref: Para 19). “19. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that law requires a proper valuation report, its acceptance by the authority concerned by application of mind and then fixing the reserve price accordingly and acceptance of the auction bid taking into consideration that there was no possibility of collusion of the bidders. The authority is duty bound to decide as to whether sale of part of the property would meet the outstanding demand. Valuation is a question of fact and valuation of the property is required to be determined fairly and reasonably.” 30. In so far as the proceedings of sale through E-auction is concerned, that has been recognized as a public auction in a judgement of this Court in M/s. Santkripa Trading Co. and others v. Bank of Baroda and another, 2013(8) ADJ 416 (DB). 31. For all the abovenoted reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is no scope of interference in the orders passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal as also the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in rejecting the securitization application challenging the auction sale dated 4.7.2014. 32. The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.