ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Ranchi-respondent no.1 whereby the extension has not been given to the petitioner for depositing 75% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.14,71,500/- as well as 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.4,90,500/- already deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited on the ground that he did not deposit 75% of the bid amount within the extended period. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to give an opportunity to him to deposit 75% of the bid amount or in alternative to release the forfeited amount alongwith interest. 2. Mr. P.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, at the very outset, while relying on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626 : submits that the petitioner being the auction purchaser of the secured assets comes under the expression of “any person” as specified under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short to be referred as “the SARFAESI Act, 2002”) and thus he has an alternative remedy to move before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ranchi against the impugned action taken by the respondent no. 1. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited (supra), the relevant paragraphs of which are quoted as under: “25. So far as this case is concerned, sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 is relevant. It provides that, if the auction-purchaser commits any default in payment of sale consideration within the time specified, the deposit made by the auction-purchaser shall be “forfeited” to the secured creditor and the auctioned property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall “forfeit” all claims to the property or its part of the sum for which it may be sold subsequently. 26. 26. Reading of the aforementioned sections and the rules and, in particular, Section 17(2) and Rule 9(5) would clearly go to show that an action of secured creditor in forfeiting the deposit made by the auction-purchaser is a part of the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4). 27. The reason is that Section 17(2) empowers the Tribunal to examine all the issues arising out of the measures taken under Section 13(4) including the measures taken by the secured creditor under Rules 8 and 9 for disposal of the secured assets of the borrower. The expression “provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder” occurring in sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (7) of Section 17 clearly suggests that it includes the action taken under Section 13(4) as also includes therein the action taken under Rules 8 and 9 which deal with the completion of sale of the secured assets. In other words, the measures taken under Section 13(4) would not be completed unless the entire procedure laid down in Rules 8 and 9 for sale of secured assets is fully complied with by the secured creditor. It is for this reason, the Tribunal has been empowered by Sections 17(2), (3) and (4) to examine all the steps taken by the secured creditor with a view to find out as to whether the sale of secured assets was made in conformity with the requirements contained in Section 13(4) read with the Rules or not? 28. We also notice that Rule 9(5) confers express power on the secured creditor to forfeit the deposit made by the auction-purchaser in case the auction-purchaser commits any default in paying installment of sale money to the secured creditor. Such action taken by the secured creditor is, in our opinion, a part of the measures specified in Section 13(4) and, therefore, it is regarded as a measure taken under Section 13(4) read with Rule 9(5). In our view, the measures taken under Section 13(4) commence with any of the action taken in clauses (a) to (d) and end with measures specified in Rule 9. 29. In our view, therefore, the expression “any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by secured creditor or his authorised officer” in Section 17(1) would include all actions taken by the secured creditor under the Rules which relate to the measures specified in Section 13(4). 30. 29. In our view, therefore, the expression “any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by secured creditor or his authorised officer” in Section 17(1) would include all actions taken by the secured creditor under the Rules which relate to the measures specified in Section 13(4). 30. The auction-purchaser (appellant herein) is one such person, who is aggrieved by the action of the secured creditor in forfeiting their money. The appellant, therefore, falls within the expression “any person” as specified under Section 17(1) and hence is entitled to challenge the action of the secured creditor (PNB) before the DRT by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act ”. 4. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it would appear that the auction purchaser (the petitioner herein) comes under the category of a person aggrieved by the action of the secured creditor in forfeiting his money in pursuance of the auction sale proceeding. He thus falls within the expression of “any person” as specified under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and hence he is entitled to challenge the action of the secured creditor (respondent-Bank) before the DRT by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. 5. However, considering the fact that the present writ petition has remained pending before this Court for some time, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an application before the DRT, Ranchi under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 within three weeks from the date of this order and on such filing, the DRT, Ranchi shall decide the same on merit in accordance with law expeditiously.