JUDGMENT : Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned communication dated 20.03.2020 in so far as issued by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.21,55,288/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs, Fifty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Eight only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 06.02.2008 on the said amount to the petitioner along with compensation quantified, Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) forthwith.) 1. The writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to refund the amount paid by the petitioner on purchase of the property auctioned pursuant to the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The refund of the amount has to be paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 06.02.2008. 2. The facts available on record show that pursuant to the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the property of the borrower was put for auction. The petitioner remained successful in the auction. He paid the entire sale consideration. Subsequent to the payment of the amount and confirmation of the sale, it was found that the creation of the mortgage was by impersonation and, therefore, the sale was cancelled by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In view of the cancellation of the sale, the petitioner prayed for refund of the amount, which is not returned by the bank despite the cancellation of the sale and even the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the bank before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer made in the petition be granted considering the fact that after cancellation of the sale, the petitioner should have been refunded the amount along with interest at commercial rate. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent bank has not contested the prayer for refund of the amount. He submits that refund of the amount would have been made by the bank immediately, but the documents pertaining to the property and the sale certificate were not returned to the bank by the petitioner and, accordingly, the amount was not paid to the petitioner. He submits that refund of the amount would have been made by the bank immediately, but the documents pertaining to the property and the sale certificate were not returned to the bank by the petitioner and, accordingly, the amount was not paid to the petitioner. He further submits that necessary documents pertaining to the property should be returned to the bank so that the bank would immediately refund the amount. The amount aforesaid would be refunded with interest at commercial rate, but without the element of compounding, as even otherwise that is not the prayer of the petitioner. Therefore, a direction may, however, be given to the petitioner to return all the documents, which include the document of sale confirmation. 5. Considering the submissions of the parties, we find that so far as the refund of the amount is concerned, the bank is in agreement to refund it on the cancellation of the sale by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, the entire amount paid by the petitioner pursuant to the sale of the property on auction is directed to be refunded to him by the respondent bank with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The amount aforesaid would be refunded by December 31, 2021. The petitioner is directed to return all the documents pertaining to the property, which include the sale certificate, within a period of two weeks from today. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. W.M.P.No.16752 of 2020 is closed. There will be no order as to costs.