ORDER : 1. In all these three petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action/inaction of the respondent- Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short ‘KSFC’) in cancelling the e-Auction and refunding the Earnest Money deposit amount and initial deposit to the petitioners, without paying the accrued interest thereupon. Therefore, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondent-KSFC published e-Auction notice in ‘The Hindu’ and ‘Vijaya Karnataka’, daily newspapers, on 27.02.2012, 15.03.2012 and 27.11.2016, declaring that it had taken possession of two house properties and invited interested persons to participate in e-Auction, bidding for property by way of e-Auction, to be conducted on particular dates specified in the notice. It is an admitted fact that the e-Auctions were held in terms of the notice that was published and the petitioners herein participated in the online bidding process. With respect to both the properties in question, the petitioners herein were declared the highest bidders. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners deposited the required 25% amount of the bid, in favour of the respondent-KSFC. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-KSFC did not call upon the petitioners to pay the balance 75% of the sale consideration and therefore, the petitioners wrote to the KSFC, calling upon the KSFC to receive the balance sale consideration and complete the sale process. Nearly two months after the e-Auction was conducted, the respondent-KSFC communicated to the petitioners respectively, vide letters dated 24.05.2012 and 13/14.08.2012 that the e-Auction process was temporarily cancelled. Along with the said letters, KSFC enclosed cheques refunding the entire amount that was deposited by the petitioners, respectively. 3. Learned counsel Sri Paras Jain, appearing for the petitioners in these matters would submit that the action of KSFC in canceling the auction is contrary to Section 13(8) of the (Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act, 2002) and Rule 9(2) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (‘Rules, 2002’ for short). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of M/s. Gaurav Enterprises, Gwalior vs. State Bank of India & Ors. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of M/s. Gaurav Enterprises, Gwalior vs. State Bank of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 Madhya Pradesh 35, wherein it was held that after the date of sale, it was not open for the Bank to accept the amount from the borrower and return the amount to the auction purchaser. Similarly, reliance was placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of : (i) Annapurna Vs. Mallikarjun and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 397 ; (ii) Ram Kishun and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 511 ; (iii) Valji Khimji and Company Vs. Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Limited and Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 299 ; (iv) Mathew Varghese Vs. M.Amritha Kumar and Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610 ; (v) Pegasus Assets Reconstruction P. Ltd. Vs. M/s.Haryana Concast Limited, in Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2011 decided on 29.12.2015; (vi) Vedica Procon Private Ltd. Vs. Balleshwar Greens Private Ltd and Ors. Reported in AIR 2015 SC 3103 , (vii) Transcore Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2008) 1 SCC 125 , (viii) Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311 , (ix) A.V.Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Govt. of A.P. And Others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221 . 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the above judgments, would submit that once the auction is held, the rights get vested in the bidder and there is no discretion vested with KSFC to cancel the auction. The learned counsel would further submit that this position is similar to the provisions in Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned counsel would also submit that the officials of KSFC have played fraud, not only on the petitioners but also on the State. To substantiate this argument, the learned counsel would point out that although KSFC informed the petitioners that the representatives of the property have paid the amount due to KSFC as per the directions of Debt Recovery Tribunal, that position is proved to be incorrect, since KSFC proceeded to issue subsequent sale notification on 25.11.2016. 6. To substantiate this argument, the learned counsel would point out that although KSFC informed the petitioners that the representatives of the property have paid the amount due to KSFC as per the directions of Debt Recovery Tribunal, that position is proved to be incorrect, since KSFC proceeded to issue subsequent sale notification on 25.11.2016. 6. On behalf of the respondent-KSFC, Sri. Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel has led the arguments in W.P.No.30220/2012, while Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel has made submissions on behalf of KSFC in the other two matters. 7. Sri. Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel would submit that condition No.11 which forms part of the e-Auction notice, stipulates as follows: “11. After receipt of the initial amount of 25% as above, the offer will be sent for approval of the Competent Authority. Only after obtaining the approval of the Competent Authority, the confirmation of sale will be communicated to the bidder. If the sale is not confirmed by the Competent Authority, the amount deposited will be refunded without interest. No right accrues on mere submission of bid or deposit of 25% of the bid amount. The balance 75% of the bid amount shall be paid within 15 days from the date of communication of confirming the sale. In case, the bidder fails to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time the amount paid by him will be forfeited and the sale will be cancelled.” 8. The learned counsel would also point out to Clause-18 which provides that KSFC reserves the right to cause any modification of any terms and conditions, cancel/postpone the e-Auction and accept or reject any bid without assigning any reasons thereof. 9. In the light of the two Clauses or conditions, the learned counsel for KSFC would submit that the petitioners having accepted the auction conditions, cannot contend that KSFC is guilty of violation of the terms and conditions of the auction or of any provision under the SARFAESI Act or Rules. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for petitioners would join issue stating that the requirement of a ‘competent authority’ approving or confirming the sale, as provided in the terms and conditions of the notice is contrary to SARFAESI Act and Rules. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for petitioners would join issue stating that the requirement of a ‘competent authority’ approving or confirming the sale, as provided in the terms and conditions of the notice is contrary to SARFAESI Act and Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Act and Rules do not make provision for ‘competent authority’ and therefore, even if the terms and conditions in the notice prescribe such a condition, it has no force of law and therefore it should be ignored. 11. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002, provides that the sale shall be confirmed by the authorized Officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the ‘secured creditor’. Further, Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002, would provide that the authorized Officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale on confirmation of sale by the ‘secured creditor’. Therefore, the word ‘competent authority’ used at Clause-11 of the terms of e-Auction is referable to the word ‘secured creditor’ used in Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002. 12. A close reading of Clause-11 would make it amply clear that after the receipt of 25% of the initial bid amount, the offer will be placed before the Competent Authority. Unless and until the Competent Authority approves the bid, the confirmation of sale cannot be done by the authorized Officer. No right accrues on mere submission of bid or deposit of 25% of the bid amount. It is also an admitted fact that KSFC did not call upon the petitioners to pay the balance 75% of the bid amount. It is also an admitted fact that the sale was not confirmed. 13. Learned Counsel for KSFC would also rely upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The first one being Laxmikant and Others Vs. Satyawan and Others reported in 1996 (4) SCC 208 and the other is Mathew Varghese Vs. M.Amritha Kumar and Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610 . 14. 13. Learned Counsel for KSFC would also rely upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The first one being Laxmikant and Others Vs. Satyawan and Others reported in 1996 (4) SCC 208 and the other is Mathew Varghese Vs. M.Amritha Kumar and Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610 . 14. Though, Laxmikanth’s case (supra) arises out of an auction sale conducted under the provisions of Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 and Nagpur Improvement Trust (Land Disposal) Rules, 1983, it has been held with reference to the conditions of sale, that even if the public auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the right to itself to reject the highest or any bid. While referring to many other judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that the State or the authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of the highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined in context with the different conditions under which such auction has been held. 15. With respect to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mathew Varghese (supra), which was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is also relied upon by learned counsel Sri S.N. Bhat, representing the owners of the property. Their Lordships have held that the equity of redemption is not extinguished by mere contract for sale and the most important and vital principle stated was that the mortgagor’s right to redeem will survive until there has been completion of sale by the mortgagee by a registered deed. The completion of sale, it is stated, can be held to be so unless and until notice in writing requiring payment of the principal money has been served on the mortgagor. Therefore, it was held that until the sale is complete by registration of sale, the mortgagor does not lose the right of redemption. The completion of sale, it is stated, can be held to be so unless and until notice in writing requiring payment of the principal money has been served on the mortgagor. Therefore, it was held that until the sale is complete by registration of sale, the mortgagor does not lose the right of redemption. It was also made clear that it was erroneous to suggest that the mortgagee would be acting as the agent of the mortgagor in selling the property. It was further held that under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, a free hand is given to a secured creditor to resort to a sale without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal. However, under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, it is clearly stipulated that the mortgagor i.e., the borrower, who is otherwise called as a debtor, retains his full right to redeem the property by tendering all the dues to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer. Under Sub-section (8) of Section 13, as noticed earlier, the secured asset should not be sold or transferred by the secured creditor when such tender is made by the borrower at the last moment before the sale or transfer. Their Lordships have also held with reference to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is general in nature in respect of all mortgagors, can have application in respect of a secured interest in a secured asset created in favour of a secured creditor, as all the above stated principles apply on all fours, in respect of a transaction as between the debtor and secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The decision in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) and Ram Kishun (supra) which were referred by the learned counsel for petitioners have also been considered in the case of Mathew Varghese. 16. While concluding, Their Lordships have held in Mathew Varghese’s case that though the recovery of public dues should be made expeditiously, it should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it should not frustrate a constitutional right, as well as the human right of a person to hold a property and that in the event of a fundamental procedural error occurring in a sale, the same can be set aside. 17. 17. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are matters where the sale was confirmed and therefore not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that KSFC had played fraud on the petitioners and the State, is an argument made in desperation. In Mathew Varghese’s case, as discussed above, it has been held that while recovery of public dues should be made expeditiously, it should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it should not frustrate a constitutional right, as well as the human right of a person to hold a property. If KSFC was of the opinion that the borrower has come forward to settle the dues and in that light, if the auction is withdrawn, it is in keeping with the principles that maximum opportunity should be given to the borrower/mortgagor to redeem his right over the property. Merely because the KSFC issued a subsequent notice for auction, it cannot be termed as ‘fraudulent’. It also follows that the petitioners could have participated in the subsequent auction, instead of pursuing this litigation. In this regard, it is also beneficial to view the observations of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in the matter between KSFC and the borrowers herein, that questions regarding fabrication of documents, relationship of the applicants with the person who had mortgaged the property and the factum of death of the mortgagor, were to be determined before a competent Civil and Criminal Court. These observations give an inkling as to why KSFC decided to withdraw the auction notice. 18. As regards payment of interest, this Court is of the opinion that the money was returned within reasonable time. Moreover, the condition of auction notice provide that the amount deposited, when returned, do not carry any interest. 19. Viewed from any angle, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. The petitions are bereft of merit. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.