JUDGMENT : D.K. Singh, J. Heard Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Praveen K. Joy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Jaju Babu, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tom K. Thomas, learned Counsel for R1 and R2 and Mr. P.L. Narayanan learned Senior Counsel for R3. Facts: 2. The first petitioner, a private limited Company, runs a resort at Cherthala, Alleppey under the name and style “Vasundhara Resorts”. The second petitioner is the Managing Director of the first respondent Company. The petitioners had availed credit facilities to the tune of Rs.53 crores from the first respondent Bank for the construction of a five-star resort. The said loan was secured by creating an equitable mortgage of certain immovable properties and hypothecation of the movable properties. The primary security comprised 6.60 Ares of land with resort building and superstructure. Fourteen agricultural lands were offered as collateral security to secure the aforesaid loan. It is stated that as a result of the Nipah Virus, Kerala floods and COVID-19, the resort business faced huge hardship as the tourism business itself was down to a great extent. The petitioners failed to discharge the liability in terms of the loan agreement. Therefore, the Bank classified the loan account of the petitioners as NPA and proceeded with the SARFAESI measures under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. 3. The petitioners filed a Securitization Application, S.A. No.530/2022 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on 20.08.2022, initially challenging the possession notice dated 06.07.2022 issued by the respondent Bank and later amended the S.A. to challenge the two sale notices dated 15.09.2022 and 29.10.2022. The petitioners also challenged the Advocate Commissioner's notice dated 28.11.2022 for taking possession of the secured assets. After the sale of the secured assets, the petitioners amended the Securitization Application to challenge the sale confirmation advice dated 26.12.2022 in favour of the third respondent. 4. Initially the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an order of status quo dated 30.11.2022. It was further directed that sale confirmation be deferred if the sale was held on the same day on 30.11.2022. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application on 07.07.2023. The respondent Bank issued two separate sale certificates in respect of the movables and immovables on 10.07.2023 and 12.07.2023 respectively. It was further directed that sale confirmation be deferred if the sale was held on the same day on 30.11.2022. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application on 07.07.2023. The respondent Bank issued two separate sale certificates in respect of the movables and immovables on 10.07.2023 and 12.07.2023 respectively. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the decision in S.A. was unsuccessful and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dismissed the petitioners’ appeal and upheld the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide final order dated 12.06.2024. 5. The petitioners, thereafter, filed the present writ petition challenging the final order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. However, this Court refused to grant any interim protection in respect of the possession of the secured asset. Against the refusal to grant any interim protection, the petitioners filed W.A. No.910/2024 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal vide order dated 05.07.2024. After the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP(C) No.14273/2024. The Supreme Court vide order dated 10.07.2024 directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.30 crores with the Bank by 25.07.2024 to show their bona fides and left it to this Court to decide the timeframe for making further deposit of a sum of Rs.20 crores by the petitioners. The order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.14273/2024 reads as under : “1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, at the outset and on instructions, states that the petitioners shall deposit not less than 30 crores within two weeks i.e., on or before 25.07.2024. She further states that soon thereafter the petitioners will deposit another 20 crores within a reasonable time as may be fixed by the High Court in the pending writ proceedings. 2. Though learned counsel for the Bank, who is on caveat, vehemently opposes the indulgence sought by the petitioners, we in the interest of justice and as a last opportunity permit the petitioners to show their bona fide and deposit a sum of not less than 30 crores with the bank, without prejudice to their rights, by 25.07.2024. Till such time, the parties shall maintain status quo re: possession or creation of third party rights. Till such time, the parties shall maintain status quo re: possession or creation of third party rights. However, if the petitioners fail to abide by their statement or the directions given above, the order of status quo shall be deemed to have been vacated with effect from 26.07.2024. Once the order of interim protection is deemed to have been vacated, necessary consequences will follow. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 4. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 6. In compliance with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.30 crores on 22.07.2024. This Court vide order dated 24.07.2024 (modified on 29.07.2024), directed the petitioners to pay a further sum of Rs.20 crores on or before 20.09.2024. The petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 20 crores in compliance with the aforesaid order passed by this Court. Thus, the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.50 crores during the pendency of the present writ petition. Petitioners’ submission: 7. Ms V Mohana learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, assisted by Mr Praveen K Joy learned Counsel, has primarily made the following submissions in support of the petitioners’ case. 7.1 Rules 5, 6, 7 and 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 mandate that, before putting the secured assets for sale, the value of the movables and the immovables are required to be estimated. The purpose and intent of the Act and the Rules is to fetch the best and maximum price for the secured asset. The Rules contemplate the valuation of movable and immovable assets separately. The reserve price is to be fixed based on proper valuation obtained from an approved valuer. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that there has been no separate valuation of six items of immovable properties also. She has placed reliance on the judgment in Ram Kishun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 11 SCC 511 and J Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas, (2014) 5 SCC 651 . 7.2 The sale notice dated 29.10.2022 would disclose a reserve price of Rs.42.30 crores collectively only for the immovable properties. There is no mention of the movable properties. However, a separate sale certificate dated 10.07.2023 was issued in respect of movable properties, giving a long list of numerous movable items, including houseboats and other boats. 7.2 The sale notice dated 29.10.2022 would disclose a reserve price of Rs.42.30 crores collectively only for the immovable properties. There is no mention of the movable properties. However, a separate sale certificate dated 10.07.2023 was issued in respect of movable properties, giving a long list of numerous movable items, including houseboats and other boats. Another sale certificate was issued on 12.07.2023 in respect of the immovable properties. According to the sale certificates, the movable assets were sold for a consideration of Rs.2.40 crores and the immovable assets were sold for a consideration of Rs.39.91 crores. There is nothing on record to suggest that any reserve price was fixed separately for movables and immovables after carrying out the due valuation as contemplated under the Rules. The submission is that there has been a complete violation of Rules 6 and 8, which mandate that the sale notice must mention the reserve price of the secured assets, which should be fixed after obtaining a valuation report from an approved valuer as provided under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. 7.2.1 It is further submitted that under Rules 5 to 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, a separate procedure for the sale of movable and immovable secured assets of the borrower is prescribed. Rule 6 deals with the sale of movable assets and sets out that the Bank must elaborate the complete description of all movable assets that are to be sold along with proper identification mark and a separate reserve price must be mentioned in respect thereof. No reserve price in respect of movable assets was fixed, and the movable assets were not separately enumerated in the sale notice dated 29.10.2022. An arbitrary value was unilaterally and unreasonably fixed with respect to movable and immovable assets after conducting the sale at the time of issuing separate sale certificates in favour of the third respondent by the Bank. Thus, the whole procedure and the requirements of the Rules got flouted and violated by the Bank to the detriment of the borrower, the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd v. Andhra Bank, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 81. 7.2.3 The movable assets could not have been treated as part and parcel of the immovable property which is evident from the separate sale certificate issued in respect of the movables. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd v. Andhra Bank, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 81. 7.2.3 The movable assets could not have been treated as part and parcel of the immovable property which is evident from the separate sale certificate issued in respect of the movables. It is well settled that unless the movables in the property and around the property are attached to earth with an intention to make it permanent, these items of movables cannot be termed as immovable property, as held in Dasa Bikshamaiah v. Authorised Officer, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1658. 7.3 It is also contended that the immovable assets were sold below the reserve price in violation of Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 which mandates that the sale of the secured immovable asset shall not be confirmed if the price offered is less than the reserve price fixed as per Rule 8(5) of the said Rules. If the authorized officer is unable to obtain a higher price, such a sale may be effected only with the consent of the borrower. In the sale notice dated 29.10.2022, the reserve price of the immovables was fixed as Rs.42.30 crore. However, according to the sale certificate dated 12.07.2023, the immovables were sold for a consideration of Rs.39.91 crores to the 3rd respondent, the auction purchaser, without obtaining the consent of the petitioners to effect the sale below the reserve price. 7.4 It is also submitted that the Bank had auctioned the property, which included a parcel of land to the extent of 2.02 Ares in Survey No.11/2 of the Vayalar Village, one of the six contiguous plots on which the resort is built. The said parcel of land has already been transferred to the Vayalar Village Panchayat vide Assignment Deed bearing Registration No.1958 of 2016. As the said land was included in the sale notices, the Panchayat filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.36310/2023 seeking a writ of mandamus to keep the said parcel of land outside the scope of the sale. This Court, vide judgment dated 15.03.2024, disposed of Panchayat’s petition on the basis of the Bank’s submission that the Bank had no claim whatsoever over the said land. This Court, vide judgment dated 15.03.2024, disposed of Panchayat’s petition on the basis of the Bank’s submission that the Bank had no claim whatsoever over the said land. The Panchayat filed W.A. No.489/2024 before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dated 11.04.2024, declared that the aforesaid parcel of land belonged to the Panchayat, and it stood excluded from all securitization proceedings and measures initiated by the Bank. The submission is that the sales notice itself was defective. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings of conducting the sale and issuing the sale certificate would also be defective and the entire procedure would be liable to be set aside. 7.5 It is further submitted that the auction purchaser is not a bona fide purchaser. When the Bank initiated the securitization measures, the auction purchaser approached the petitioners on 10.10.2022 with the intention to purchase the resort and offered a sum of Rs.45.30 crores. The auction purchaser was also a joint proposer of a One-time Settlement proposal submitted to the Bank. However, during the settlement talks between the petitioners and the Bank, the auction purchaser came to know about the proposed auction sale, and he withdrew his offer for a sum of Rs.45.30 crores and participated in the auction behind the petitioners’ back. He was declared a successful bidder and purchased the secured assets in the auction. The auction purchaser had all along been aware of the negotiations between the petitioners and the Bank and the dire need of the petitioners to settle the loan liability with the Bank. The auction purchaser, knowing all these facts, had participated in auction proceedings and was successful at an amount less than the reserve price and much below the price offered by himself, i.e., Rs.45.30 crores. It is, therefore, submitted that the auction purchaser conducted himself with unclean hands and had offered the price below the reserve price and much below the offer made by himself for Rs.45.30 crores in connivance with the bank officials. Therefore, the whole process of the sale of the secured assets and movables has been vitiated and is liable to be set aside. Submissions of the 1st and 2nd respondents: 8. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that the loan account of the petitioners became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in the year 2013. Therefore, the whole process of the sale of the secured assets and movables has been vitiated and is liable to be set aside. Submissions of the 1st and 2nd respondents: 8. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that the loan account of the petitioners became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in the year 2013. A demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.55,02,30,564/-. A second notice of demand was issued on 18.08.2020 to pay a sum of Rs.72,13,29,826.37 within sixty days. In pursuance of the One-time Settlement Scheme offered by the Bank on 22.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.38,04,89,903.25, the petitioners paid only Rs.1.92 crores. Therefore, the said One-time settlement offer lapsed due to non-payment of the remaining amount by the petitioners. In view thereof, a third notice of demand notice dated 07.12.2021 was issued under Section 13(2) claiming a sum of Rs.82,76,71,281.45. Again on 27.01.2022, the Bank gave a One-time Settlement proposal as per the SBI OTS Scheme 2021 to the petitioners to settle the liability by paying an amount of Rs.44.50 crores. However, the petitioners did not come forward to settle the dues even as per the second One-time Settlement Scheme. 8.1 It was only on 06.04.2022 that the petitioners came forward with an offer for settlement of the dues and paid Rs.1.50 crores to the Bank’s No Lien Account and sought time till 21.04.2022 for submission of a firm compromise proposal. Thereafter, they sought time till 30.06.2022 to submit the proposal. However, the petitioners failed to submit any firm proposal/ compromise offer. In the meantime, on 26.03.2022, the petitioners entered into an agreement with M/s Zaahrah Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd to sell the resort. Ultimately, the Bank issued a possession notice on 06.07.2022 claiming Rs.88,67,45,965/-. Thereafter, the petitioners filed S.A. No.530/2022 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Ernakulam. The petitioners also filed W.P.(C) No.34125/2022 seeking to extend the One-time Settlement proposal given on 02.11.2022. However, the said writ petition came to be dismissed holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. 8.2 The properties were sold to the 3rd respondent in an e-auction on 30.11.2022 for Rs.42.31 crores. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed S.A. No.530/2022 against which the petitioner filed the appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 8.2 The properties were sold to the 3rd respondent in an e-auction on 30.11.2022 for Rs.42.31 crores. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed S.A. No.530/2022 against which the petitioner filed the appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 12.06.2024. Challenging the said decision of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed. 8.3 It is submitted that the Bank obtained the valuation report for the secured asset from the approved valuer and produced it before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The said valuation report was not challenged by the petitioners. The petitioner had issued a letter dated 22.11.2022 stating that a third person was ready to purchase the property for Rs.40.50 crores and comparing the bid offered by the 3rd respondent for an amount of Rs.42.31 crores, the amount offered by the 3rd respondent was more than the price of Rs.40.50 crores for which the petitioner was willing to sell the property in question. The 3rd respondent deposited the entire bid amount on 10.07.2023 and the sale certificate for movable and immovable properties was issued on 10.07.2023 and 12.07.2023. 8.4 The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner had filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.14273/2024 before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench judgment dated 05.07.2024 in W.A. No.910/2024 against the denial of the interim order by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. The only question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the possession of the secured asset was to be taken during the pendency of the writ petition, and therefore, the Supreme Court passed the order for making a deposit of Rs.30 crores and subject to making a deposit of Rs.30 crores, it was directed that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the secured asset during the pendency of the writ petition. The question regarding the validity of the sale in favour of the 3rd respondent was not the subject matter of the judgment of the Division Bench or the Supreme Court. It is submitted that there is no illegality committed in conducting the sale. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as there is no error on facts or law committed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the orders impugned in the present writ petition. It is submitted that there is no illegality committed in conducting the sale. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as there is no error on facts or law committed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the orders impugned in the present writ petition. 8.5 The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Supreme Court in Celir LLP v. Bhafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd, (2024) 2 SCC 1 has held that the borrower's failure to tender the entire dues before the publication of auction notice under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act would disentitle the borrower to challenge the auction. The 3rd respondent was declared a successful bidder as he offered a higher bid; the auction is not required to be interfered with. The petitioner has not come forward to tender the entire dues after publication of notice under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8.6 Furthermore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that once the Bank declined to consider the fresh proposal for a One-time Settlement and against the said decision of the Bank, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34125/2022 got dismissed, there is no occasion for the Bank to consider a fresh proposal of One-time Settlement. It is also submitted that the One-time Settlement proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 03.08.2024, after the judgment of the Supreme Court has been placed before the appropriate Committee for decision along with the Branch’s recommendation only in respect of the remaining dues after adjusting the sales consideration of Rs.42.30 crores and for the release of the remaining six property and not the resort property. Submission of the 3rd respondent: 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent/ auction purchaser has submitted that the petitioners failed to deposit the entire dues after the publication of the notice, so the provisions Section 13(8) stare at the face of the petitioners. He further submits that the 3rd respondent offered Rs.45.30 crore, but when the deal did not go through, he participated in the auction proceedings and offered the price of Rs.39.31 crore and Rs.2.40 crore, totalling Rs.41.71 crore, as the entire sale consideration. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 13(8), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 13(8), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Discussion and Analysis: 10. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties and perused the record. 11. The following questions need to be considered in the present writ petition : (I) Whether there has been a violation of Rules 5, 6, 7, 8(5) and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 in conducting the auction sale of the secured asset by the Bank on 30.11.2022 in favour of the 3rd respondent? (II) Whether the auction sale, in favour of the 3rd respondent, is liable to be set aside, as the auction sale has been confirmed below the reserve price? (III) Whether the 3rd respondent is a bona fide purchaser as he himself has written to the petitioners to purchase the resort for Rs.45.30 crores and he was a joint proposer of a One-time Settlement proposal submitted to the Bank? (IV) Whether Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act would stare at the face of the petitioner to challenge the auction proceedings on any ground? 12. Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act provides for the enforcement of Security Interests. A secured creditor can avert the sale of the secured asset by tendering the dues to the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tenders for the sale of the secured asset. A secured creditor can avert the sale of the secured asset by tendering the dues to the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tenders for the sale of the secured asset. 12.1 Sub-section (8) of Section 13 reads as under : “(8) Where the amount of dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets,— (i) the secured assets shall not be transferred by way of lease assignment or sale by the secured creditor; and (ii) in case, any step has been taken by the secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of the assets before tendering of such amount under this sub-section, no further step shall be taken by such secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of such secured assets.” 13. The mode and manner in which the sale of the secured asset is to be conducted has been provided in the provisions of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. Before putting the secured asset on sale, the valuation of movable and immovable assets is required to be obtained. Rules 5 and 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 are in respect of the valuation and sale of movable secured assets. While Rule 8 is in respect of the sale of immovable secured assets. 14. Rules 5 and 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, which are in respect of the valuation and sale of the movable secured assets would read as under : “5. Valuation of movable secured assets.- After taking possession under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 and in any case before sale, the authorised officer shall obtain the estimated value of the movable secured assets and thereafter, if considered necessary, fix in consultation with the secured creditor, the reserve price of the assets to he sold in realisation of the dues of the secured creditor. 6. 6. Sale of movable secured assets.- (1) the authorised officer may sell the moveable secured assets taken possession under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 in one or more lots by adopting any of the following methods to secure the maximum sale price for the assets, to be so sold- (a) obtaining quotations from parties dealing in the secured assets or otherwise interested in buying such assets; or (b) inviting tenders from the public; or (c) holding public auction including through e-auction mode; or (d) by private treaty. (2) The authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the movable secured assets, under sub-rule (1): PROVIDED that if the sale of such secured assets is being effected by either inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the secured creditor shall cause a public notice in the Form given in Appendix II-A to be published in two leading newspapers, including one in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality. PROVIDED FURTHER that if the sale of movable property by any one of the methods specified under sub-rule (1) fails and the sale is required to be conducted again, the authorised officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower for any subsequent sale. (3) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditors and the proposed purchaser. (3) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditors and the proposed purchaser. (4) The authorised officer shall upload the detailed terms and conditions of the sale of the movable secured assets on the website of the secured creditor, which shall include, (a) details about the borrower and the secured creditor; (b) a complete description of movable secured assets to be sold with identification marks or numbers, if any, on them; (c) reserve price of the movable secured assets, if any, and the time and manner of payment; (d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed; (e) deposit of earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor; (f) any other terms or conditions which the authorised officer considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of movable secured assets.” 14.1 From the reading of the Rules, it is evident that before the sale of the movable secured asset is conducted, it is mandatory for the authorized officer to obtain the estimated value of the movable secured assets and thereafter, if it is considered necessary, fix in consultation with the secured creditor, the reserve price of the assets to be sold in the realization of the dues of the secured creditor. Though Rule 5 does not lay down how the authorized officer is required to obtain the estimated value of the movable secured assets unlike in the case of immovable property, however, it is mandatory for the authorized officer that he should obtain the estimated value of the movable secured assets before putting them on sale in realization of the dues of the secured creditor. 14.2 As per Rule 6, a separate procedure has been prescribed for the sale of movable secured assets. The value of the secured asset is fixed after the authorized officer obtains the valuation in consultation with the secured creditor. Rule 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 reads as under : “6. 14.2 As per Rule 6, a separate procedure has been prescribed for the sale of movable secured assets. The value of the secured asset is fixed after the authorized officer obtains the valuation in consultation with the secured creditor. Rule 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 reads as under : “6. Sale of movable secured assets.- (1) the authorised officer may sell the moveable secured assets taken possession under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 in one or more lots by adopting any of the following methods to secure maximum sale price for the assets, to be so sold- (a) obtaining quotations from parties dealing in the secured assets or otherwise interested in buying such assets; or (b) inviting tenders from the public; or (c) holding public auction including through e-auction mode; or (d) by private treaty. (2) The authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the movable secured assets, under sub-rule (1): PROVIDED that if the sale of such secured assets is being effected by either inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the secured creditor shall cause a public notice in the Form given in Appendix II-A to be published in two leading newspapers, including one in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality. PROVIDED FURTHER that if the sale of movable property by any one of the methods specified under sub-rule (1) fails and the sale is required to be conducted again, the authorised officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower for any subsequent sale. (3) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditors and the proposed purchaser. (3) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditors and the proposed purchaser. (4) The authorised officer shall upload the detailed terms and conditions of the sale of the movable secured assets on the website of the secured creditor, which shall include, (a) details about the borrower and the secured creditor; (b) a complete description of movable secured assets to be sold with identification marks or numbers, if any, on them; (c) reserve price of the movable secured assets, if any, and the time and manner of payment; (d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed; (e) deposit of earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor; (f) any other terms or conditions which the authorised officer considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of movable secured assets.” 14.3 The purpose of providing an elaborate procedure for selling the secured assets is to secure the maximum sale price for the assets to be sold. Sub-Rule (2) mandates that the authorized officer serve the borrower with a thirty-day notice for the sale of the movable secured assets. The notice will also be published in two leading newspapers, including one in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality. The authorized officer is also required to upload the detailed terms and conditions of the sale of the movable secured assets on the website of the secured creditor, which would include a complete description of movable secured assets to be sold with identification marks or numbers, the reserved price of the movable secured assets, time and place for public auction, and deposit of earnest money etc. 14.4 After completing the aforesaid procedure as mandated under the law, the sale certificate is required to be issued in respect of the movable assets to the successful party under Rule 7, which reads as under : “7. 14.4 After completing the aforesaid procedure as mandated under the law, the sale certificate is required to be issued in respect of the movable assets to the successful party under Rule 7, which reads as under : “7. Issue of certificate of sale.- (1) Where movable secured assets is sold, sale price of each lot shall be paid as per the terms of the public notice or on the terms as may be settled between the parties, as the case may be, and in the event of default of payment, the movable secured assets shall be liable to be offered for sale again. (2) On payment of sale price, the authorised officer shall issue a certificate of sale in the prescribe form Appendix III to these rules specifying the movable secured assets sold, price paid and the name of the purchaser and thereafter the sale shall become absolute. The certificate of sale so issued shall be prima facie evidence of title of the purchaser. (3) Where the movable secured assets are those referred in sub-clauses (iii) to (v) of clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act, the provisions contained in these rules and rule 7 dealing with the sale of movable secured assets shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such assets.” 14.5 The Rules contemplate separate procedures for the sale of the immovable secured asset, particularly Rules 8 and 9 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, which would read as under : “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, as soon as possible but in any case not later than seven days from the date of taking possession, in two leading newspaper one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised officer. (2A) All notices under these rules may also be served upon the borrower through electronic mode of service, in addition to the modes prescribed under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of rule 8. (2A) All notices under these rules may also be served upon the borrower through electronic mode of service, in addition to the modes prescribed under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of rule 8. (3) In the event of possession of immovable property is actually taken by the authorised officer, such property shall be kept in his own custody or in the custody of any person authorised or appointed by him, who shall take as much care of the property in his custody as a owner of ordinary prudence would, under the similar circumstances, take of such property. (4) The authorised officer shall take steps for preservation and protection of secured assets and insure them, if necessary, till they are sold or otherwise disposed of. (5) Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 9, the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of the following methods:- (a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets or otherwise interested in buying the such assets; or (b) by inviting tenders from the public; (c) by holding public auction including through e-auction mode; or] (d) by private treaty. PROVIDED that in case of sale of immovable property in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the provision of Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, 1977 shall apply to the person who acquires such property in the State. (6) the authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for the sale of the immovable secured assets, under sub-rule (5): PROVIDED that if the sale of such secured asset is being effected by either inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the secured creditor shall cause a public notice in the Form given in Appendix IV-A to be published in two leading newspapers including one in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality. (7) every notice of sale shall be affixed on the conspicuous part of the immovable property and the authorised officer shall upload the detailed terms and conditions of the sale, on the website of the secured creditor, which shall include; (a) the description of the immovable property to be sold, including the details of the encumbrances known to the secured creditor; (b) the secured debt for recovery of which the property is to be sold; (c) reserve price of the immovable secured assets below which the property may not be sold; (d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed; (e) deposit of earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor; (f) any other terms and conditions, which the authorized officer considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of the property. (8) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditors and the proposed purchaser in writing. 9. Time of sale, Issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.- (1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower: PROVIDED FURTHER that if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub-rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale. (2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor: PROVIDED that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-rule (5) of rule 8: PROVIDED FURTHER that if the authorised officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price. (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 authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again; (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised 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. (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. (6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these rules. (6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these rules. (7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances, the authorised officer may, if he thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and interest as may be determined by him. PROVIDED that if after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and contingencies there is any surplus available out of money deposited by the purchaser such surplus shall be paid to the purchaser within fifteen day, from date of finalisation of the sale. (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorised officer shall issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him and take steps to make, the payment accordingly. (9) The authorised officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-rule (7) above. (10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not.” 14.6 Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 provides for obtaining the valuation of the property from an approved valuer by the authorized officer. Thereafter, fixing the reserve price in consultation with the secured creditor which may be sold as a whole or in part towards the satisfaction of the outstanding liability against the borrower. Clause (c) of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 prescribes that the property should not be sold below the reserve price fixed under Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. 15. Clause (c) of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 prescribes that the property should not be sold below the reserve price fixed under Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. 15. From the facts stated above, it is evident that no separate valuation of the movable and immovable property was obtained by the authorized officer and no reserve price separately was fixed for movable and immovable assets. It is also relevant to note here that the reserve price was fixed at Rs.42.30 crores. However, the sale has been confirmed for Rs.41.71 crores, below the reserve price. M/s Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v. Andhra Bank [supra[ 16. The authorized officer is required to act strictly in accordance with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. The language employed in the Rules is in the nature of commanding the authorized officer. Therefore, any infraction of the Rules would be detrimental to the whole exercise of disposing of the secured asset for realizing the outstanding dues of the secured creditor. The question of whether it was proper for the Bank/ secured creditor not to separately value the machinery in the immovable property when it obtained the valuation before the property was sold in favour of the auction purchaser came into consideration before a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in M/s Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd (supra). 16.1 The question framed to be answered in the above judgment would read as under : “Whether it was proper for the 1st respondent Bank not to separately value the machinery in the subject property when it obtained the valuation before it sold the property to the 2nd respondent?” 16.2 After considering the relevant provisions of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, the Division Bench set aside the sale of the movable and immovable items based on the valuation report for obtaining the valuation of both the items together as contrary to Rules 5, 6 and 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. The secured asset cannot be dealt with in any manner and such an asset can only be disposed of in the manner prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The Rules contemplate the process to ensure that the secured assets are sold to fetch maximum benefit to the borrowers. The secured asset cannot be dealt with in any manner and such an asset can only be disposed of in the manner prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The Rules contemplate the process to ensure that the secured assets are sold to fetch maximum benefit to the borrowers. If the Bank or the authorized officer act in contravention of the mandatory provisions in conducting the sale, it would mean that he has acted in breach of the trust and against the interest of the borrower and such a sale could be illegal. Ram Kishun v. State of Uttar Pradesh [supra] 17. The Supreme Court in Ram Kishun held that the public money should be recovered, and recovery should be made expeditiously. However, it does not mean that financial institutions should be concerned only with the recovery of their loan and cannot be permitted to behave like property dealers. Neither can they be permitted to dispose of the secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions. 17.1 The Supreme Court emphasized that the recovery of public dues must be made strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the law. The right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as a human right and a person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. Therefore, the condition precedent for taking away someone’s property or disposing of the secured assets must be in strict compliance with the statutory provisions. 17.2 It has been further observed in the said judgment that the relevant provisions of the Statute and the Rules require a proper valuation report, its acceptance by the authority concerned by application of mind and then fixing the reserve price accordingly. 17.3 Paragraphs 13, 14, 22, 24 and 28, which are relevant are extracted hereunder : “13. Undoubtedly, public money should be recovered and recovery should be made expeditiously. But it does not mean that the financial institutions which are concerned only with the recovery of their loans, may be permitted to behave like property dealers and be permitted further to dispose of the secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions. 14. A right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as a human right. 14. A right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as a human right. A person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the provisions of a statute. (Vide Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram and State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan) Thus, the condition precedent for taking away someone's property or disposing of the secured assets, is that the authority must ensure compliance with the statutory provisions. *** *** *** 22. In view of the above, it is evident that there must be an application of mind by the authority concerned while approving/accepting the report of the approved valuer and fixing the reserve price, as the failure to do so may cause substantial injury to the borrower/guarantor and that would amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate the subsequent proceedings. *** *** *** 24. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that law requires a proper valuation report, its acceptance by the authority concerned by application of mind and then fixing the reserve price accordingly and acceptance of the auction bid taking into consideration that there was no possibility of collusion of the bidders. The authority is duty-bound to decide as to whether sale of part of the property would meet the outstanding demand. Valuation is a question of fact and valuation of the property is required to be determined fairly and reasonably. *** *** *** 28. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the recovery of the public dues must be made strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The liability of a surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor. In case there are more than one surety the liability is to be divided equally among the sureties for unpaid amount of loan. Once the sale has been confirmed it cannot be set aside unless a fundamental procedural error has occurred or sale certificate had been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.” J Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas [supra] 18. A similar view has been taken in paragraph 18 of this judgment, which reads as under : “18. It must be emphasised that generally proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the borrowers are initiated only when the borrower is in dire straits. A similar view has been taken in paragraph 18 of this judgment, which reads as under : “18. It must be emphasised that generally proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the borrowers are initiated only when the borrower is in dire straits. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the 2002 Rules have been enacted to ensure that the secured asset is not sold for a song. It is expected that all the banks and financial institutions which resort to the extreme measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for sale of the secured assets to ensure that such sale of the asset provides maximum benefit to the borrower by the sale of such asset. Therefore, the secured creditors are expected to take bona fide measures to ensure that there is maximum yield from such secured assets for the borrowers. In the present case, Mr Dhruv Mehta has pointed out that sale consideration is only Rs 10,000 over the reserve price whereas the property was worth much more. It is not necessary for us to go into this question as, in our opinion, the sale is null and void being in violation of the provision of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules 8 and 9 of the 2002 Rules.” 19. It may be noted that the appeal filed against the judgment in the case of Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd was allowed by the Supreme Court in Arce Polymers Pvt Ltd v. M/s Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, (2022) 2 SCC 221 . However, it was allowed in light of the facts of the case, noticing that the movables and immovables had been separately valued in accordance with the law. Celir LLP v. Bhafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt Ltd 20. The judgment in Celir LLP, relied on by the auction purchaser, is required to be read considering the facts of that case. The High Court in the aforesaid case had allowed the borrower to exercise his right of redemption of mortgage under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act after the confirmation of the auction sale in favour of the auction purchaser and the Supreme Court explained that the borrower’s right of redemption under Section 13(8) stands extinguished after the sale of the secured assets takes place. 21. 21. The 3rd respondent had written to the petitioner to purchase the resort for Rs.45.30 crores and he was a joint proposer of the One-time Settlement proposal submitted by the petitioner to the Bank. After submitting the proposal for a One-time Settlement, the 3rd respondent, the auction purchaser himself participated in the auction proceedings behind the back of the petitioners and was the successful bidder for the price of Rs.41.71 crores, which is below the price of Rs.45.30 crores offered by him and below the reserve price itself. In the aforesaid facts, when the 3rd respondent himself was negotiating and offered the higher price for purchasing the property through a private sale, and he knew about all the facts, he cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser. 21.1 If the auction itself has been in infraction of the Rules and mandate of the law, Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act would not stare at the face of the petitioner to challenge the auction proceedings, as there has been a violation of the law. Result: 22. In view thereof, the questions framed to be considered by this Court are answered in favour of the petitioners. The present writ petition is allowed on the following terms : (i) The impugned order in Exts. P5 to P9, P11 and P35 are set aside. (ii) The petitioner has paid Rs.50 crores in pursuance of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and this Court. (iii) The Bank should refund the amount deposited by the 3rd respondent with applicable interest within a period of one month from today. (iv) The petitioner should negotiate with the Bank for the discharge of their remaining liability in respect of the outstanding dues of the Bank. The present writ petition is allowed. All Interlocutory Applications regarding interim matters stand closed.