ORDER : 1. The petitioner B.Muniraju claiming to be an Agreement Holder for sale of property from the borrower of the Respondent No.1 Vysya Cooperative Bank Ltd., (for short ‘Bank’) has filed this writ petition in this Court on 14.03.2018 with the following prayers: (i) To call for the records in S.A.No.321 of 2017 disposed of on 19.02.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru as found at Annexure-A; (ii) To quash the order dated 19.02.2008 in S.A.No.321 of 2017 passed by the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru, as found at Annexure-A; (iii) To direct the respondent No.1 bank to open lock of the schedule property pending disposal of the present writ petition; (iv) Consequently direct the respondent No.1 bank to issue sale certificate in favour of the petitioner after payment of the entire loan amount to the respondent No.1 bank and further the respondent No.1 cannot initiate action under the Act as the same does not come within the purview and meaning of banking procedure; & (v) To grant such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Bhadrinath R., has urged before the Court that the petitioner not only holds an Agreement of Sale executed by the vendor/borrower and although no suit for specific performance has been filed by the petitioner, he has offered more price for the secured assets in question by paying the higher price than one offered by the highest bidder in auction held by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 3. The petitioner has also approached the Debt Recover Tribunal (for short ‘DRT’) with similar request in S.A.No.321/2017. However, the DRT Tribunal has rejected his prayer vide impugned order Annexure-A dated 19.02.2018. The operative portion of the said order at para8 is quoted below for ready reference: “8. However, during the course of the arguments, both the Id.Counsel appearing for the appellant and the appellant in person offered to purchase the property at a higher price than offered by the highest bidder in auction, if they are given time upto 3.3.2018. However, no such written offer was made by the appellant before this Tribunal giving specific details of his offer. However, no such written offer was made by the appellant before this Tribunal giving specific details of his offer. However, if any such written offer is made by the appellant to the bank on or before 22.02.2018, the bank may, at its own discretion, consider the same and pass appropriate orders on such offer before confirming the sale and issuing the sale certificate to the auction purchaser.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the petitioner is still ready to pay higher price than the highest auction bidder and let the DRT and the Respondent-Bank consider his request with the intervention of this Court in this writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent-Shivashankara A., submitted before the Court that the auction of the secured assets in question has already been finalized by the Respondent-Bank at 3.36 Crores in favour of the highest bidder Dr.K.S.Rao on 28.11.2017 and he also paid the complete price of the secured asset of 3.36 Crores on 08.03.2018 and the Sale Certificate is also issued in his favour and therefore the present writ petition is infructuous and does not require any interference by this Court. He, further, submitted that after adjustment of the said auction price against the dues of the Respondent-Bank, the balance amount in excess has been made over to the borrowers and the loan account of the borrowers has been closed by Respondent No.1Bank. 6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petition is infructuous and is an exercise of futility by the petitioner. The petitioner has no legal right over the property in question nor any locus standi to challenge the SARFAESI action by the Respondent-Bank. Mere Agreement of Sale executed in his favour is of no consequence, as the petitioner has admittedly not filed any suit for specific performance of the said agreement nor he holds a decree in his favour. The mortgaged assets with the Respondent-Bank could not have been alienated by the borrowers in favour of the third party without the permission of the Respondent-Bank. Be that as it may, the auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act now stand concluded and therefore any offer made by the petitioner now is of no consequence, as the contract is concluded in favour of the third party Dr.K.S.Rao and the same cannot be set aside. Be that as it may, the auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act now stand concluded and therefore any offer made by the petitioner now is of no consequence, as the contract is concluded in favour of the third party Dr.K.S.Rao and the same cannot be set aside. The petitioner also did not avail the opportunity given by the DRT, as indicated above in para-8 of the DRT order, quoted above. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Copy of this order be sent to the Respondents.