ORDER : Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Central Bank of India. None appears for the other respondents. 2. The Debt Recovery Officer-II of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Assam issued a proclamation notice for selling a property which was owned and possessed by one Kartik Sarkar of Dhiren Para, Guwahati. The proclamation notice was issued through e-auction sale on 31.05.2018 at 15.00 hrs (3 pm) on “AS IT IS WHERE IT IS” basis. The auction was called by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the respondents under the Central Bank of India in connection with the recovery of debt amount of Rs.18,72,104/-. 3. In the said auction process, the petitioner as purchaser appeared before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati in person and deposited the fee of Rs.35230/- in the form of a bank account bearing No.074040 dated 02.07.2018 drawn on the State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar Branch. The aforesaid fact is reflected from the order dated 02.07.2018 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati. Another order dated 02.06.2018 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati shows that the petitioner had made a payment of Rs.4,80,000/- on 01.06.2018 in compliance of an earlier order dated 31.05.2018 as regards his participation in the auction process. The order also reflects that the petitioner is required to pay a balance amount of Rs.26,40,000/- on or before 14.06.2018 as well as poundage fee of Rs.35210/-. 4. It is stated that one Bimal Chandra Das in the meantime made a claim that the land in question which was put up in the auction sale was purchased by him vide registered sale deed which took place even prior to the issuance of the auction notice by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the respondent Central Bank of India. 5. Accordingly, Sri Bimal Chandra Das instituted WP(C) 7362/2018 wherein an interim order dated 12.10.2018 was passed and the respondent therein namely Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Central Bank of India were directed not to interfere with the possession of Sri Bimal Chandra Das as regards the land measuring 15 lechas covered by Patta No.KP 02(old), 218 (new), Dag No.328 (old), 2867 (new) of Mouza-Beltaola, Fatasil, Guwahati. Accordingly, the land in question which was put up for auction sale by the respondent Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Central Bank of India stood encumbered and therefore, the auction process could not be brought to its logical end. 6. In the circumstance, this writ petition is instituted by the auction participant Sri Abdul Alim claiming for refund to the amount already deposited by the auction participant with the respondent authorities including poundage fees of Rs.35,230/-. If the land involved in the auction process itself stood encumbered and is also the subject matter of dispute in another writ petition wherein, there is a claim that the said land was already purchased by the petitioner in the said writ petition, we see no reason as to how the respondent authorities being the authorities under the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati as well as the respondents Central Bank of India can retain the money deposited by the auction participant and not refund it back to them and at the same time are also not in a position to bring the auction process to its logical end and hand over the land in question to the auction participant. 7. In the circumstance, Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Bank states that the money in question have been deposited by the bank with the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Debt Recovery Tribunal had issued order regarding payment of amount to the petitioner. But the fact remains that inspite of such action being taken regarding money which was deposited and there being an order for its payment to the petitioner, the petitioner has not received the amount till date. We are of the view that the petitioner has made out a strong case of having a legal right to atleast get refund of the amount he had already deposited towards the process in the participation in the auction process and at the same time the respondent authorities cannot claim to have any legal right to retain the said money and also not in a position to bring the auction process to its logical end so that in the alternative the petitioner may get the possession of the land for which the auction had taken place. 8. 8. In the circumstance, the respondent authorities being the authorities in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati and the authorities under the Central Bank of India are directed to do the needful amongst each other and ensure that the amount deposited by the writ petitioner is refunded back to him within a period of three weeks from today. 9. Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent today makes a statement that the amount would be paid or after 26.05.2020. We take note of such submission and accordingly direct that the required amount be refunded to the writ petitioner on or before 31.05.2020. As the auction process could not brought to its logical end and the petitioner is now entitled for refund of the amount deposited, the petitioner shall also return the respondent Central Bank of India the confirmation and sale certificate that was issued in his favour at the time of receiving of the refund of the amount. 10. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. In calculating the refund amount the petitioner shall submit an application indicating the principal amount as well as interest under the law he is entitled and the same upon being submitted, the respondent Central Bank of India shall pass a reasoned order thereof as regards the interest payment and the interest payable also be paid to the petitioner along with the refund.