JUDGMENT S Ravindra Bhat, C.J. - The present appeal is at the behest of the successful bidder of two properties (Shop Nos 66 and 67, Modi Arcade, Office No. 226, Jodhpur- hereafter "the property") put to auction by the Indian Overseas Bank (hereafter "IOB" the secured creditor) pursuant to a notice inviting bids published in daily newspapers on 15-05-2011. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition. 2. The facts are that IOB had taken over the property, which belongs to the third respondent (hereafter "the borrower") on default in payment of its dues, under provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter "SARFESI Act"). IOB sought to sell the property, and advertised, seeking bids in the 'Dainik Bhaskar' edition dated 15.05.2011. The bids were to be opened on 17.06.2011. The petitioner made a bid of Rs. 14.05 lakhs for the property in the auction proceedings held further to the auction notice. Upon being declared the highest bidder, the petitioner/appellant deposited 20% of the bid money with IOB. Later, the appellant wrote a letter dated 19.07.2011 to IOB requesting it to accept the balance amount and confirm the sale. However, IOB replied, apprising the appellant that confirmation of sale was not possible in view of the interim stay dated 16.06.2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (DRT) in the securitization application filed by the borrower. The borrower had urged, inter alia that the notice of possession was not published in two newspapers. 3. The appellant urged that as he was not a party before the DRT, reply to the securitization application was filed only by IOB. He argued that the IOB assured him that it would watch his interest before the DRT. Aggrieved by the delay in confirmation of sale, the appellant requested IOB to pay interest on the 20% advance bid amount deposited by him and also for issuance of a provisional sale certificate and also sought permission to collect rent from the tenant. IOB, however, did not accede to the appellants' pleas. 4. The DRT quashed the possession notice dated 02.11.2010 by its order dated 18.06.2012 holding that the possession notice was published in only one newspaper, contrary to mandatory requirement of law and that such a notice should have been published in at least two newspapers. IOB, however, did not accede to the appellants' pleas. 4. The DRT quashed the possession notice dated 02.11.2010 by its order dated 18.06.2012 holding that the possession notice was published in only one newspaper, contrary to mandatory requirement of law and that such a notice should have been published in at least two newspapers. The appellant kept pursuing the matter with IOB officials and repeatedly requested them to provide him with the status of the securitization application, but no information was forthcoming. Eventually on 10.10.2012, IOB informed him that it would be unable to confirm the sale in view of the final order dated 18.06.2012 passed by the DRT. The appellant urges that the DRT's finding is contrary to facts because the possession notice had actually been published in two newspapers and that no exception on this score was taken by the borrower in the Securitization Application. Further, it was argued that the IOB presented proof to DRT that the possession notice was published in two newspapers as required by law. The appellant stated that when he came to know about the DRT's reasoning, which he states was manifestly incorrect (i.e. that the possession notice was not published in two newspapers), he procured copies of the advertisement published in the two newspapers and thereafter, filed a writ petition (WP No.14584/2013) before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2013 granting him liberty to approach the DRT by filing an appropriate application for review of the order dated 18.06.2012. 5. The petitioner accordingly, filed the review application before the DRT claiming that the order dated 18.06.2012 was passed on the basis of false assertions made by the defaulter. The delay occasioned in filing the review application was condoned. While the petitioner's review application was pending before the DRT, IOB started moving for re-auction of the property and published a fresh possession notice in the newspaper. The appellant challenged the possession notice by filing a miscellaneous application before the DRT in the pending review application. The DRT dismissed that application on 15.04.2015. The appellant challenged the order of DRT rejecting the application by an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which too was dismissed on 29.06.2015. The appellant challenged the possession notice by filing a miscellaneous application before the DRT in the pending review application. The DRT dismissed that application on 15.04.2015. The appellant challenged the order of DRT rejecting the application by an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which too was dismissed on 29.06.2015. The appellant has alleged that while considering the application filed by him, DRT cast aspersions regarding the fraudulent introduction of documents on its file in proceedings of securitization application and also directed registration of an FIR in this regard but, without waiting for the result of investigation, rejected his review application in a hasty manner. The appellant was summoned by the Registrar of the DRT to appear and give evidence regarding the alleged fraud. 6. The appellant approached this Court urging that the order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the DRT clearly conveys that a direction had been given to register an FIR against unknown person/s but later on, the Presiding Officer of DRT, without any rhyme or reason modified the earlier order and directed an internal inquiry rather than persisting with the direction to lodge the FIR. The petitioner alleges that the DRT acted arbitrarily. According to the appellant, the impugned orders of the DRT are arbitrary, perverse and require to be quashed. The appellant was concededly the highest bidder in the auction proceedings held by IOB and is thus entitled to confirmation of sale. It was argued by the petitioner that the DRT had observed in its proceedings regarding interpolation in the record and as such, the matter should not have been finally decided till inquiry was completed in relation to the mischief in the court record. The orders of the DRT and DRAT in the review application and the appeal respectively filed by the appellant, according to him were unjust and arbitrary because effect and import of his successful bid in the auction proceedings was not considered while deciding the controversy. It was alleged that IOB officials misled the appellant and made him believe that they were watching his interest in the proceedings before the DRT. However, the bank acted irresponsibly and permitted the sale proceedings to be frustrated without bringing the correct facts about the publication of the possession notice in two newspapers on the record of DRT. It was alleged that IOB officials misled the appellant and made him believe that they were watching his interest in the proceedings before the DRT. However, the bank acted irresponsibly and permitted the sale proceedings to be frustrated without bringing the correct facts about the publication of the possession notice in two newspapers on the record of DRT. It was submitted that IOB was undoubtedly aware regarding the publication of possession notices in two newspapers and thus, it was not only the IOB's duty but also its legal obligation to bring this fact on record of the DRT. By failing to do so, the IOB defrauded the appellant. 7. Iob urged, on the other hand that the sale of the secured assets was being delayed for no reason whatsoever and that the bank has a statutory right to recover its dues by auctioning the property. It was submitted that the Bank never represented false facts; counsel relied on the record, and the replies filed by IOB before the DRT. It was stated that since the proceedings were getting unduly prolonged, the IOB decided to cancel the previous bid and offer the property for a fresh round of bidding, in auction as that was considered prudent and feasible. The appellant, if so advised, could participate in the fresh auction. However, he could not be allowed to delay and frustrate the auction proceedings at his whims. It was urged that the petitioner, if he so desired, was free to claim reimbursement of the advance money paid by him at the time of the first auction. The amount was lying as a fixed deposit in the trust of IOB. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding: "Ex-facie, this Court is of the firm opinion that if at all, the petitioner intended to pursue the matter then he should have participated in the proceedings of the Securitisation Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing an impleadment application. It is admitted that the Bank intimated the petitioner of these proceedings. The plea putforth by Shri Manish Shishodia, Advocate regarding the petitioner having been advised by the Bank officials that they would take care of his interest before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is absolutely misconceived and untenable. It is admitted that the Bank intimated the petitioner of these proceedings. The plea putforth by Shri Manish Shishodia, Advocate regarding the petitioner having been advised by the Bank officials that they would take care of his interest before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is absolutely misconceived and untenable. Admittedly, since the petitioner was apprised by the Bank of the pending Securitization proceedings before the DRT during pendency thereof, if at all he was desirous of protecting his rights pursuant to making highest bid in the auction then, he should have rushed to the Tribunal and sought impleadment in the proceedings. Thereafter, he could have opposed the Securitization Application. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to now raise a grievance that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal cancelling the sale was illegal. It is not in doubt that when the order dated 18.06.2012 was passed, the DRT was not provided proper proof that publication of the possession notice in two newspapers as mandated by law. Despite all these odds, this Court gave a lifeline to the petitioner by permitting him to file a review application. The review application was dismissed by the DRT holding that the second possession notice published in (8 of 9) [CW9885/2015] the newspaper 'Hindustan Times' was not brought to its notice at the time of disposal of the securitisation application and thus, the order setting aside the sale notice was perfectly legal. This finding of the Tribunal appeals to logic and reasoning without prejudice to the fact that the Tribunal directed that inquiry should be made regarding the mischief with the record during pendency of the securitisation application. While deciding the review application, the Tribunal made observations regarding mischief being committed in its record and without doubt, this issue should be taken to the logical conclusion by getting a thorough inquiry conducted and by punishing the guilty. Nevertheless, this aspect cannot be construed in such a manner so as to frustrate the Bank from its right to recover the due amount by selling the secured assets. It may be noted that more than 7 years have passed since the first auction proceedings were held. It can be presumed that in this interregnum, the Bank's dues must have proportionately welled by application of interest, penalties, etc. and at the same time, the cost of the secured assets has also gone up significantly. It may be noted that more than 7 years have passed since the first auction proceedings were held. It can be presumed that in this interregnum, the Bank's dues must have proportionately welled by application of interest, penalties, etc. and at the same time, the cost of the secured assets has also gone up significantly. Thus, if the mortgaged shops are sold now, there will be an imminent prospect of the property fetching a better sale consideration thereby securing the bank's interest. Since the sale was not finalised, no legal right has been crystallized in favour of the petitioner so as to entitle him to object against fresh auction of the property. At best, the petitioner can claim interest on the advance bid amount which he deposited with the Bank at the time of auction. The said loss caused to the petitioner has also been covered fully because the Bank had invested the amount in a fixed deposit and manifestly thus, monetary loss whatsoever would be caused to the petitioner and he would be fully compensated by the interest on the FDR. In wake of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case so as to establish that any of his fundamental or legal rights have been violated in the case at hand calling for exercise of this Court's supervisory/ extraordinary writ jurisdiction so as to interfere in the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition is considered to be devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. Stay application is also dismissed. No order as to costs." 8. The appellant reiterates the grounds averred in support of his appeal. It is submitted that the learned single judge completely failed to see that the appellant is a victim of the bank's series of errors. Pointing out that the IOB did not ever say that possession notice was not published in two newspapers, learned counsel highlighted that the DRT's premise for setting aside the auction was flawed. It was submitted that this ground was not urged by the borrower and that there was irrefutable material on the record to contradict, factually, the DRT's assumption. Pointing out that the IOB did not ever say that possession notice was not published in two newspapers, learned counsel highlighted that the DRT's premise for setting aside the auction was flawed. It was submitted that this ground was not urged by the borrower and that there was irrefutable material on the record to contradict, factually, the DRT's assumption. Neither in the review- nor subsequently in the DRAT's appellate proceedings, was this aspect considered in its proper perspective; both those tribunals mechanically affirmed the first view that there was no publication of the notices in two newspapers. It was also urged, besides that the appellant, as an innocent third party had reasonably expected the IOB, a public authority, to defend its own action- in issuing the advertisement and carrying out the auction. However, that was sadly belied; arbitrarily, IOB remained a silent bystander in the proceedings initiated against it, strongly disclosing complicity on the part of its officials, which the appellant became a victim of. It was therefore, urged, by aid of the record that once the basic premise was proved to be false, the reasoning of the DRT, DRAT and the Single Judge becomes indefensible. 9. It was argued on behalf of IOB that no false averment was ever made in the proceedings. It was pointed out that though the initial possession notice was published in two newspapers, as required, there was a serious defect, inasmuch as the advertisements did not match or correctly describe the borrower: in one, the borrower's name was shown as Kiran Chandak, proprietor of Anokhi Creations; whereas in the other, it was shown to be Shakuntala Chandak. Accordingly, the IOB issued a corrigendum or errata; however that was not published in two newspapers, as mandated by Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002, issued under the SARFESI Act. As a result, the DRT held that the sale was contrary to law. Since the DRT's decision was not per se illegal, the IOB decided that having regard to the lapse of time, and the possibility of it being able to secure a higher price, it was in its interest and that of the borrowers to not confirm the sale. No mala fides could be attributed to that decision; nor was it tainted by any illegality. 10. No mala fides could be attributed to that decision; nor was it tainted by any illegality. 10. It is evident from the above narrative that the petitioner's grievance is with regard to the non-confirmation of the sale of the property, of which he was the highest bidder. The record, in this case, discloses that the IOB did in fact publish the sale notice, in two newspapers. Equally, there was a misdescription of the borrower/owner's name in one such advertisement. The IOB had to correct the error, which it did, in issuing a corrigendum and publishing it. However, its action was erroneous inasmuch as the publication was only in one newspaper. In the meanwhile, the auction was held on 17.06.2011; apparently on that date, the bidders were informed that the DRT had on the previous date (16.06.2011), on the borrower's application, entertained the application and made an interim order, staying confirmation of sale. Clearly, therefore, the appellant had notice about the possibility of the sale not being confirmed and, more crucially, about pendency of proceedings at the behest of the borrower. The appellant's letter of 19.07.2011, which is on record, clearly shows that he was aware of DRT's orders and that sale confirmation could be secured after the proceedings before it went in favour of the bank. IOB wrote to him, on 27-07-2011, stating that it could confirm the sale after DRT's clearance. 11. Undeniably, the DRT, by its order of 18.06.2012, quashed the sale on the ground that the corrigendum notice was not published in two newspapers; according to it, this was contrary to Rule 8 (2) of the Enforcement Rules. That rule inter alia, states as follows: "8. Sale of immovable secured assets. (1) Where the secured asset is an immovable property, the authorised officer shall take or cause to be taken possession, by delivering a possession notice prepared as nearly as possible in Appendix IV to these rules, to the borrower and by affixing the possession notice on the outer door or at such conspicuous place of the property. (2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be published in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised officer." 12. Facially, the rule states in unambiguous terms that the possession notice had to be published in two leading newspapers. (2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be published in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised officer." 12. Facially, the rule states in unambiguous terms that the possession notice had to be published in two leading newspapers. The record discloses that the corrigendum (which was necessary on account of misdescription of the owner of the property in the advertisement issued earlier) was published only in one newspaper. In these circumstances, the DRT held that the auction was unsustainable and quashed the possession notice. The appellant had reasonable opportunity of the DRT proceedings, right from inception; he could have sought impleadment in those proceedings. He did not do so, but chose to await the orders. Before this court too, there was no attempt on the part of the appellant to state how the DRT's order could be characterized as erroneous in law. It cannot in the opinion of this Court, be held that the requirement of publication of a possession or auction notice in two newspapers is not mandatory nor that the misdescription was a technical error. Once this error came to light, IOB had to legitimately correct the error. The only manner known and accepted in such circumstances, is to issue a corrigendum. That corrigendum had to be published in the same manner as the original advertisement (because the SARFESI does not prescribe any special procedure), as required by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, which empowers authorities when a Central Act is silent about the procedure for amendment, modification or rescission of a previous order, notification or rule, the power to do so: it states that such power shall be "exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any 3notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued..." 13. The effect of Section 21 was examined by the Supreme Court in two of its decisions. In Lachmi Narain and Ors. The effect of Section 21 was examined by the Supreme Court in two of its decisions. In Lachmi Narain and Ors. v Union of India and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 953 the Court observed that: "Section 21, as pointed out by this Court in Gopichand v. Delhi Admn., (1959) Supp2 SCR 87 , embodies only a rule of constructions and the nature and extent of its application must be governed by the relevant statute which confers the power to issue the notification." In State of Bihar v D.N. Ganguly & Ors, (1959) SCR 1191 , it was held that it is wellsettled that the rule of construction embodied in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act can apply to the provisions of a statute only where the subjectmatter, context or effect of such provisions are in no way inconsistent with such application. 14. In Kamla Prasad Khetan v Union of India, (1957) SCR 1052 , the court considered the scope of Section 21 of the General Clause Act and observed that:"The power to issue an order under any Central Act includes a power to amend the order; but this power is subject to a very important qualification and the qualification is contained in the words 'exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any)'................................The true scope and effect of the expression 'subject to the like conditions (if any)' occurring in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has been explained." 15. It is thus apparent, that the DRT went by settled rules of statutory interpretation in holding that publication of two advertisements for the corrigendum was essential. This Court notices, further, that the decision taken by the Bank to cancel the sale, or not confirm it, was taken on 10-10-2012. IOB justifies this, by stating that there was a possibility of securing a higher price, due to lapse of time. Having regard to the DRT's decision, the IOB's action in accepting it, and not confirming the sale cannot be termed arbitrary. No mala fides have been alleged against any specific named individual, nor any credible material relied on by the appellant to level allegations against IOB's officials. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the approach of the DRT or the DRAT. The impugned judgment therefore, does not call for interference. 16. No mala fides have been alleged against any specific named individual, nor any credible material relied on by the appellant to level allegations against IOB's officials. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the approach of the DRT or the DRAT. The impugned judgment therefore, does not call for interference. 16. For the foregoing reasons, this court holds the present appeal to be unmerited; it is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications too are disposed of.