ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. This order will dispose of both W.P.No.4378 of 2016 and Contempt Case No.1539 of 2016. 2. Heard Mr. K. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Mr. K. Sarangapani as the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition being W.P.No.4378 of 2016 seeking a declaration that the in-action on the part of the respondent in conducting survey and fixing boundaries of the auctioned property and on the otherhand insisting upon the petitioner to pay balance sale amount before 13.02.2016 is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, thus illegal. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent to conduct survey and fix the boundaries of the auctioned property and thereafter to permit the petitioner to pay the proportionate balance amount. 4. Case of the petitioner is that respondent is State Bank of Hyderabad, represented by its Authorized Officer, Stressed Assets Management Branch. 4.1. Respondent had notified e-auction on 24.12.2015 for conducting auction of the schedule property of the defaulter who had availed loan from the respondent. The description of the property is as under:- Vacant land bearing Municipal No.19-11-41 (old), corresponding to Municipal No.19-1-96 (new), admeasuring 3332.09 square yards or 2785.90 square meters situated at Ward No.9, Block No.11, Shambunipet, Warangal (within Warangal Municipal Corporation). 5. In the e-auction of the schedule property which was subsequently held on 30.01.2016 petitioner was declared as the successful bidder. He had already paid a sum of Rs.5,10,000.00 towards Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D) on 29.01.2016. As per the Tender Notification petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.7,64,000.00 towards 25% of the bid amount, which was also paid by the petitioner on 30.01.2016. 6. Respondent issued letter dated 01.02.2016 informing the petitioner that being the highest bidder, he had to pay the balance amount of Rs.38,19,000.00 on or before 13.02.2016. 7. In the meanwhile, petitioner inspected the schedule property. On such inspection, local villagers objected to and claimed part of the auction sold land to an extent of 700 square yards on the ground that the said 700 square yards was meant for performing “Dasara Festival” being a village property. 8. Faced with such a situation, petitioner sent a representation through registered post on 08.02.2016 to the respondent requesting the latter to fix the boundaries and fence the subject land. 8. Faced with such a situation, petitioner sent a representation through registered post on 08.02.2016 to the respondent requesting the latter to fix the boundaries and fence the subject land. However, the respondent did not appreciate the aforesaid problem faced by the petitioner; rather respondent had kept on insisting the petitioner to pay the balance amount by 13.2.2016, failing which it was stated that the 25% of the bid amount deposited by the petitioner (Rs.5,10,000.00+Rs.7,64,000.00 = Rs.12,74,000.00) would be forfeited. 9. It is in such circumstances that the present Writ Petition came to be filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 10. This Court by order dated 11.02.2016 issued notice. After noting that there was a dispute with regard to the 700 square yards of land of the auctioned land, it was directed that petitioner should pay Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 13.02.2016, whereafter the respondent would not insist for payment of the entire amount, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. 11. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent through Mr. M. Naga Mohan, Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Stressed Assets Recovery Management Branch, Hyderabad acting as Authorized Officer of the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “The SARFAESI Act”). 12. It is stated that M/s. Bhavani Traders, a partnership firm, availed credit facilities from the State Bank of Hyderabad, M.S.M.E.Branch, Warangal. The schedule land standing in the name of Sri G. Shashikanth and Smt. G. Madhavi was mortgaged to the said Bank as one of the securities. However, the borrower defaulted in the repayment of the credit availed off. Consequently, its account was classified as non- performing asset (N.P.A). Thereafter, the aforesaid loan account was transferred from the M.S.M.E.Warangal Branch to the Stressed Assets Management Branch, which has been specially established to take steps for recovery of the amounts in NPA accounts. 13. On being so transferred, the Stressed Assets Management Branch through its authorized officer initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and in this connection issued e-auction sale notice dated 24.12.2015. The sale notice contained the details of terms and conditions of sale which was also uploaded in the website of the respondent. Reference has been made to condition Nos.9, 10 and 12 thereof. The sale notice contained the details of terms and conditions of sale which was also uploaded in the website of the respondent. Reference has been made to condition Nos.9, 10 and 12 thereof. As per condition No.9, the successful bidder should deposit 25% of the bid amount (including E.M.D.) immediately on declaration as successful bidder. The balance 75% of the bid amount should be deposited within 15 days from the date of sale. Clause No.10 says that in case of default in payment at any stage by the successful bidder/auction purchaser within the stipulated time, the sale would be cancelled leading to forfeiture of the amount already paid, where after the property would be put to sale again. In terms of clause No.12, the property is sold on “as is where is basis”. 14. Petitioner participated in the e-auction offering bid amount of Rs.50,93,000.00 as against the reserve price of Rs.50,73,000.00. Bid of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent where after he remitted 25% of the bid amount i.e., Rs.12,74,000.00 on 30.01.2016. As per the condition laid down in clause No.9, petitioner was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.38.19 lakhs representing 75% of the bid amount on or before 13.02.2016. However, petitioner failed to pay the said amount. 15. It is stated that respondent had sold the schedule property on “as is where is basis”. Petitioner was fully aware of the physical features of the schedule property at the time of auction. 16. Respondent vide letter dated 01.02.2016 had confirmed the auction sale in favour of the petitioner. While receiving Rs.12.74 lakhs being 25% of the bid amount, petitioner was advised to pay the balance amount of Rs.38.19 lakhs on or before 13.02.2016 failing which it was stated that respondent would forfeit the amount already paid by the petitioner. As per condition No.13 the prospective bidders were advised to peruse the copies of the title deeds available with the respondent and to verify the latest encumbrance and other connected record to satisfy themselves as regards title and encumbrance of the property. It was also mentioned that intending bidders could contact the authorized officer for ascertaining the details of the property and also for inspection of the property. 17. It was also mentioned that intending bidders could contact the authorized officer for ascertaining the details of the property and also for inspection of the property. 17. Allegation of the petitioner that a part of the schedule property to the extent of 700 square yards was common village property where festivals were celebrated has been denied in as much as officials of the respondent had no source to verify about the genuineness of such allegation. 18. Acknowledging that petitioner had sent a representation to the respondent on 08.02.2016, it is stated that immediately on the next date i.e., on 09.02.2016 the Writ Petition came to be filed without giving any reasonable time and opportunity to the respondent to respond to the representation. 19. Respondent has further stated that the schedule property was valued by the approved valuer of the respondent. While conducting the valuation he had considered only 75% of the land area i.e., 2499.06 square yards out of 3332.09 square yards by leaving 25% of the total area towards internal roads and common amenities. Thus, the reserve price fixed for the auction represented only 75% of the schedule land. While denying the allegation of the petitioner regarding alleged in-action of the respondent, it is stated that petitioner had deposited Rs.25,00,000/- as directed by this court vide order dated 11.02.2016. However, it is stated that to avoid further complications in the matter and in good faith, the respondent refunded the entire amount deposited by the petitioner by crediting the same into the petitioner’s account on 08.08.2016. 20. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in refunding the amount deposited by the petitioner and contending that the same amounts to wilful and deliberate violation of order dated 11.02.2016 passed by this court, Contempt Case No. 1539 of 2016 came to be filed by the petitioner against Sri Ravi Prasad, Authorized Officer of the respondent. It is contended that by refunding the amount of Rs.37.74 lakhs into the account of the petitioner on 08.08.2016 when the order dated 11.02.2016 was holding the field with W.P.No.4378 of 2018 being pending respondent had committed contempt of court. 21. It is contended that by refunding the amount of Rs.37.74 lakhs into the account of the petitioner on 08.08.2016 when the order dated 11.02.2016 was holding the field with W.P.No.4378 of 2018 being pending respondent had committed contempt of court. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent was not justified in insisting on payment of the full bid amount by the petitioner, when the petitioner had brought it to the notice of the respondent that a portion of the auctioned land measuring about 700 square yards was being claimed by the local villagers as community land where festivals were celebrated. He further submits that on an interim direction by this court petitioner had deposited Rs.25,00,000/-with the respondent. Thus petitioner had deposited a substantial amount of Rs.37.74 lakhs out of the total bid amount of Rs.50.93 lakhs. When the Writ Petition was pending and the interim order holding the field, the respondent acted illegally in refunding the entire amount of Rs.37.74 lakhs to the petitioner by crediting the same into his account. He therefore, submits that respondent may be directed to carry out actual measurement of the auctioned land and thereafter to accept the revised sale price by proportionately reducing the bid amount. 21.1. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to sub-rules 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (briefly “the Rules” hereinafter) to contend that it is the statutory mandate for payment of the balance amount within 15 days of confirmation of sale or within such extended period not exceeding three months. If the payment is not paid within the aforesaid period or within such extended period, the deposit made by the auction purchaser to the secured creditor would be forfeited. Therefore, to avoid any complication, the money deposited by the petitioner was refunded back which also protects the interest of the petitioner. As regards allegation of the petitioner that a portion of the auctioned land is disputed, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner had participated in the auction sale being fully aware of the fact situation. They had priced the bid amount and made the necessary payments with eyes wide open. Now petitioner cannot turn around and contend that the total land area would be much less and therefore, its bid amount should be scaled down proportionately. They had priced the bid amount and made the necessary payments with eyes wide open. Now petitioner cannot turn around and contend that the total land area would be much less and therefore, its bid amount should be scaled down proportionately. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted it will strike of the root of the auction process contemplated under the SARFAESI Act. 22. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 23. Rule 9 of the Rules deals with time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession etc. Sub-Rules 3, 4 and 5 are relevant and those are extracted hereunder:- “Sub-Rule (3): On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e., on the same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five per cent. of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorised officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again. Sub-Rule (4) : The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period [as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months]. Sub-Rule (5): In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold.” 24. From the above, it is evident that on every sale of immovable property, the purchaser is required to pay 25% of the sale price on the date of auction itself or on the next working day. This 25% of the sale price would include the Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.). The balance amount of 75% shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer within 15 days of confirmation of sale or within such extended period as may be agreed upon but, the extended period shall not exceed three months. This 25% of the sale price would include the Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.). The balance amount of 75% shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer within 15 days of confirmation of sale or within such extended period as may be agreed upon but, the extended period shall not exceed three months. In default of such payment, the deposit shall be forfeited to the secured creditor and the property shall be resold. In such an eventuality, the defaulted purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the same for which it may be subsequently sold. 25. The use of word “shall” in sub-rule (5) is indicative of the legislative intent that in case of default by the purchaser the deposit made by the auction purchaser would stand forfeited to the secured creditor. By restating that the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property and that the said property shall be sold further reinforces the above legislative intent. 26. In the face of such statutory provision, petitioner ran the risk of forfeiture of the amount deposited. In order to avoid any complications, respondent had refunded the amount so deposited and got the same credited in the bank account of the petitioner. Of course, as the matter was pending before this court, respondent ought to have appraised the court before resorting to such a step. When the matter is pending before the court it is expected that the concerned authority would desist from taking such steps which may render the proceedings before the court infructuous. To that extent there appears to be some over jealousness on the part of the officials of the respondent. 27. Having said so, when we look at the entire controversy in a holistic manner, we find that the claim of the petitioner is factual in nature which is disputed by the respondent. Petitioner’s contention that 700 square yards of the auctioned property is under the possession of the local villagers is contested by the respondent. On the face of such contestations, we are of the view that the Writ Court would not be justified in directing that the auctioned property should be re-measured where after the bid amount of the petitioner (auction purchaser) should be proportionately scaled down after excluding such portion from the auctioned land. On the face of such contestations, we are of the view that the Writ Court would not be justified in directing that the auctioned property should be re-measured where after the bid amount of the petitioner (auction purchaser) should be proportionately scaled down after excluding such portion from the auctioned land. This is an exercise which may be gone into by the respondent, having regard to the fact that petitioner had deposited a substantial amount : Rs.37.74 lakhs out of the total bid amount of Rs.50.93 lakhs and going for a fresh auction would entail additional expenses with related complications. No Mandamus can be issued by the Writ Court in this regard. 28. Coming to the Contempt Case, we are of the view that though there was a lapse on the part of the bank officials in remitting the deposited amount to the account of the petitioner, it would be too harsh to take a view that the said officials had committed contempt of court. In the light of what we have discussed above and held in the Writ Petition, we feel that petitioner has come out of this episode without any financial loss in as much as if the law would have been allowed to take its course, it may have led to forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner. However, this again would have been too harsh as because petitioner had deposited 25% with the respondent on orders of the court; it is trite that court orders cannot cause prejudice to anyone. 29. Thus, taking an overall view of the matter while we leave it to the parties to explore possibility of settlement even at this stage, we decline to issue any positive direction to the respondent, as prayed for by the petitioner. 30. Consequently, and subject to the above, the Writ Petition as well as the Contempt Case are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 31. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in Writ Petition and Contempt Case shall also stand closed.