JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. Today applications i.e. CM-4944 & 6417-CWP-2023 for recalling of the order dated 29.03.2023 and for seeking extension of time for depositing the part payment have been listed. With the consent of counsels for the parties the main case itself is taken on board for hearing. 2. Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ' 2002 Act') dated 07.04.2021 (Annexure P-19) and the subsequent notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure P-29) alongwith the sale notice dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure P-30). Challenge has also been raised to the order passed by the District Magistrate, SAS Nagar dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-31). 3. The property in dispute is House No.2657, Sector 60, Mohali measuring 500 square yard. A perusal of notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the 2002 Act (Annexure P-19) would go on to show that a sum of Rs. 9,98,43,126.76 was due on the ground that on 05.02.2020 the operation and conduct of the financial assistance had become irregular. Resultantly, the formal notice under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act was issued and symbolic possession of the said property was taken under Rule 8 & 9 on 05.04.2022. The District Magistrate passed the order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-31) while keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in 'Allahabad Bank v. District Magistrate, Ludhiana and others', 2021 (3) PLR 690 and while noticing that a detailed affidavit had been submitted by the authorized officer and that present petitioners had been given opportunity to settle the matter with the Bank, but the settlement could not be effected. 4. The sale notice thereafter came to be issued and published in newspaper on 15.12.2022 (Annexure P-30) wherein it was noticed that there were total liabilities of Rs. 11,04,75,431.03 as on 11.12.2022 and the property measuring 500 square yards was put to sale with the reserve price of Rs. 4,62,13,000/-. The e-auction was fixed for 16.01.2023 as per the said notice. 5. The following order was passed on 12.01.2023 while noting the contention of the counsel for the petitioners:- "It has been averred that the petitioner is a MSME Unit. 4,62,13,000/-. The e-auction was fixed for 16.01.2023 as per the said notice. 5. The following order was passed on 12.01.2023 while noting the contention of the counsel for the petitioners:- "It has been averred that the petitioner is a MSME Unit. Inter alia contends that prior to declaring the account of the petitioner/firm as NPA, the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 17.03.2016 on the subject of frame work for revival and re-habilitation of Micro, Small and Medium enterprises and in particular para 2.1 was not adhered to inasmuch as the matter was never placed before the duly constituted Committee. Counsel further submits that against an outstanding amount of Rs.8.5 Crores approximately as of date, the petitioner/firm is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 16.01.2023, a further sum of Rs.25 lakhs by 31.01.2023 and another amount of Rs.50 lakhs by 28.02.2023. Notice of motion, returnable for 25.04.2023. In the meanwhile, physical dispossession of the residential property bearing No.2657, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali shall remain stayed. Further, the e-auction proceedings pursuant to the e-auction sale notice at Annexure P-30 slated for 16.01.2023 may proceed but the same be not finalized without the leave of this Court. It is, however, made clear that in case, the petitioner/firm defaults as regards the deposit of different amounts as have been undertaken by the counsel and recorded in the order today, the interim protection shall stand vacated." 6. Since, the said order was conditional and has not been complied with, an application bearing CM-4944-CWP-2023 for extension of time was filed, in which the following order was passed on 29.03.2023:- "CM-4944-CWP-2023 Application for extension of time to deposit the amount has been filed. The demand draft of Rs. 40,00,000/- which was required has not been produced inspite of the fact that on an earlier occasion the protection had been granted on the ground that an undertaking was given that against the outstanding of Rs. 8.5 crores, the petitioner/firm was willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in installments. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no further indulgence can be granted and the application for extension of time is dismissed. 8.5 crores, the petitioner/firm was willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in installments. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no further indulgence can be granted and the application for extension of time is dismissed. Accordingly, we also vacate the order dated 12.01.2023 regarding the stay of physical possession since an order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-31) under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has also been passed." 7. Resultantly, another application bearing CM-6417-CWP- 2023 has been filed for recalling of the order by taking various pleas and counsel for the petitioner had produced a demand draft of Rs. 40 lakhs to get over the earlier order dated 29.03.2023. 8. Counsel for the respondent-Bank has pointed out that there was an OTS proposal of Rs.10 crores which had been considered by the Bank and sanctioned on 23.12.2022. As per the said order, a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs were to be paid in a no lien account and Rs. 50 lakhs were to be paid at the time of conveying of OTS sanction and Rs. 1.5 crores were to be paid by 31.12.2022. The balance OTS amount of Rs. 7.5 crores was to be paid by 31.03.2023. The letter dated 23.12.2022 regarding sanction of OTS proposal reads as under:- " To, 1) M/s. Snoozer Bedding Ltd. 2) Mr. Manu Malhotra 3) Ms. Shreya Malhotra Sub: OTS Sanction of M/s. Snoozer Bedding Ltd., Mr. Manu Malhotra and Ms. Shreya Malhotra - Pertaining to our Mohali Phase VII Branch. Dear Sir, This is to inform you that your OTS proposal of Rs 10.00 Crores for the subject accounts was placed before the competent authority and has been permitted under following terms and conditions: 1. Accept Rs. 10.00 Crore towards full and final settlement, payable as below: i. Rs. 0.50 Crore paid as upfront (kept in No Lien Account) to be adjusted to loan accounts immediately on conveying OTS sanction to the party. ii. Rs. 0.50 Crore to be paid at the time of convey of OTS sanction to the party and amount received so to be adjusted to loan accounts. Iii. Another Rs. 1.50 Crore to be paid before 31.12.2022 iv. Balance OTS amount Rs. 7.50 Crore to be paid on or before 31.03.2023. 2. Legal and other charges debited (Rs. ii. Rs. 0.50 Crore to be paid at the time of convey of OTS sanction to the party and amount received so to be adjusted to loan accounts. Iii. Another Rs. 1.50 Crore to be paid before 31.12.2022 iv. Balance OTS amount Rs. 7.50 Crore to be paid on or before 31.03.2023. 2. Legal and other charges debited (Rs. 0.04 Crore) and to be debited further, to be paid by the borrowers over and above the OTS amount. 3. To permit to issue NOC to sell residential house mortgaged in MSME Loan, Mortgage Loan & Education Loan and release of house documents to the buyer on the receipt of Payment of Rs. 7.00 Crores i.e. Rs.0.50 Cr upfront amount +Rs 0.50 Cr on OTS Sanction+ Rs. 6.00 Cr from House sale. 4. Party to withdraw Appeal/case/claim filed against the bank, if any, before any court etc. 5. Bank reserves the right for withdrawal of the OTS sanctioned at any point of time even during the period permitted for payment of OTS without assigning any reasons for withdrawal of OTS. 6. In the event of Bank finding party's misrepresentation of facts, bank reserves the right to withdraw the OTS permitted and proceed legally for recovery of entire dues. 7. The OTS settlement will not have any bearing whatsoever on the ongoing criminal case/ proceedings Initiated by CBI/ Police authorities. The OTS shall be without prejudice to the rights of CBI/Police to prosecute to conclusion the pending criminal proceedings. 8. In the event of non-compliance with any of the terms of the sanction by the party, including payment of the OTS amount as per the stipulated schedule, the OTS sanction stands automatically withdrawn without assigning any reasons for the same and the Bank reserves the right to proceed as it deems fit Including proceeding legally for recovery of the entire dues. 9. If you fail to pay the balance offer amount within the stipulated time frame the OTS sanction shall automatically stands cancelled/ withdrawn and bank shall initiate further recovery measures under SARFAESI and through DRT immediately thereafter. 10. The OTS settlement will not have any bearing whatsoever on the ongoing criminal case /proceedings initiated by CBI / Police authorities. The OTS shall be without any prejudice to the rights of CBI/Police to prosecute to conclusion the pending criminal proceedings. 11. 10. The OTS settlement will not have any bearing whatsoever on the ongoing criminal case /proceedings initiated by CBI / Police authorities. The OTS shall be without any prejudice to the rights of CBI/Police to prosecute to conclusion the pending criminal proceedings. 11. In the event of non compliance with any of the terms of the sanction by you including payment of the OTS amount as per the stipulated schedule, the OTS sanction will stand automatically withdrawn without assigning any reasons for the same and Bank reserves right to proceed as it deems fit including proceeding legally for recovery of entire dues. 12. Permission of release of the documents/title deeds of securities charged to Bank shall only be on receipt of entire compromise amount, repayment of other direct/ Indirect liabilities if any and on closure of the account. 13. On payment of entire OTS amount as per the terms of sanction, the accounts will appear in the records of the CICS for a minimum period of seven years with remarks "settled" as per the CIC (Regulation) Act, 2005. 14. No further request for any changes in Term of sanction/extension of time will be entertained. 15. The concession extended as above stands automatically withdrawn in case the party fails to remit the compromise amount within the stipulated time and the Bank reserves the right to proceed legally for recovery of entire dues in case the party does not comply with the above." 9. It is submitted that instead of apprising this Court of the said terms and conditions, the Court was kept in dark on 12.01.2023 regarding the said OTS proposal and a different schedule of payment was sought which has also not been adhered to. The application for recalling of the order is, thus, opposed on the ground that there has been concealment of facts. 10. We are in agreement as such regarding the factum of concealment which has now been pointed out to us. The amended writ petition has also been filed taking various additional grounds and it is pertinent to notice that the OTS proposal dated 23.12.2022 has not been referred to in the pleadings. The interim order was, thus, taken from this Court by concealing the true facts and by pleading that the business has come to a stand-still due to Covid-19 and units had been closed and the Bank has failed to provide necessary solace. 11. The interim order was, thus, taken from this Court by concealing the true facts and by pleading that the business has come to a stand-still due to Covid-19 and units had been closed and the Bank has failed to provide necessary solace. 11. The Apex Court has time and again laid down the principles that the Writ Court while exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction would not hear a person on merits, if there is suppression of material facts. It was held that disclosure of true, complete and correct facts was a very basis of the writ jurisdiction. Relevant observations made in the judgement passed in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 , read as under:- "32. It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 34. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible." 12. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible." 12. The said view was, thereafter, followed in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 wherein also the writ petitioner had not stated the correct facts before the High Court and delayed the benefit of the surplus land which was to go to the landless poor persons. It was, accordingly, held that the case belongs to category of persons who not only attempt, but have succeeded in polluting the course of justice and mislead the Court, no case for interference would be made out. It was also held that a misleading fact was put forward before the High Court and the appellant had succeeded in persuading the Court to pass an order which had resulted in frustrating the efforts made by the concerned authority regarding the distribution of the surplus land. 13. The position is similar in the present case. In spite of proposal of OTS being forwarded, the petitioner chose to approach this Court and got a different order without disclosing the fact that the said offer had been given to him. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for recalling the order whereby the stay had been vacated and even otherwise the writ petition is not liable to be heard on merits, as there is concealment of true facts. 14. As noticed challenge has also been raised to the notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act and there is an alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. The Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.22021-22022 of 2022 titled M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. & others v. Naveen Mathew Philip & another, decided on 17.04.2023 has held that only in exceptional circumstances the Writ Court would exercise its jurisdiction and in the present case the petitioners case rather suffers from concealment of material particulars and does not fall in that category. 15. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. All pending civil miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. 16. The amount of Rs. 15. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. All pending civil miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. 16. The amount of Rs. 10 lakhs which were deposited on 23.03.2023 with the Registrar of this Court, will be forwarded in the form of demand draft to counsel for the respondent-Bank in favour of Canara Bank for crediting the same in the account of the petitioner for adjustment against the outstandings.