JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J. Prayer: 1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 165 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed holding it not maintainable. Facts: 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under: Paritran Medical College & Hospital is a unit of Paritran Trust. The said trust submitted a project report before the consortium respondent-Bank proposing the development of a Medical College and Hospital, thereafter, the bank has decided to extend consortium finance to the Trust in which PNB was the leading bank whereas UBI and Oriental Bank of Commerce were the members of the consortium. It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that the project got delayed due to which the repayment of term loan which was to start from August, 2010 could not be started due to change in the MCI guidelines and therefore, the affiliation from MCI could not be obtained for commencing academic session 2010-11. The Trust approached the consortium banks for re-schedulement of the loan account and finally the leading bank agreed to sanction further term loan on 26.03.2010 but other two consortium banks refused to grant further sanction in the ratio decided in the original agreement and thus, the Punjab National Bank also cancelled additional loan sanctioned in terms of the letter dated 14.12.2010. Thereafter, the consortium banks classified the account as NPA on different dates and as such, respondent-Bank initiated proceeding under SARFAESI Act by issuing notice dated 09.12.2011 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act pursuant to which the appellant-writ petitioner was directed to make payment of the entire outstanding dues within a period of 60 days from the date of notice failing which the defendant Bank will take all coercive measures for enforcement of security. Thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner filed representation on 21.01.2012 but the same got rejected by the respondent-Banks and the respondent-Bank issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 09.02.2012. Thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner filed representation on 21.01.2012 but the same got rejected by the respondent-Banks and the respondent-Bank issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 09.02.2012. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant-writ petitioner filed writ petition before this Court challenging the action of the respondent-Bank, however, the same was dismissed in terms of the order dated 14.10.2014. It is the also the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that in addition to the SARFAESI action, the consortium bank also filed Original Application No. 154 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 26.06.2015. After issuance of Certificate of Recovery in terms of Section 19(22) of RDDBFI Act, 1993, a recovery proceeding being R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 was initiated for recovery of the amount due, pursuant thereto, demand notice dated 13.07.2015 was issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Thereafter, while the matter was pending, the appellant-writ petitioner approached the consortium bank for settlement of the matter outside the court and also deposited Rs.50 lakhs for consideration of the proposal but the same was not found acceptable and thereafter, the Recovery Officer issued Warrant of Attachment of immovable property mortgaged with the consortium bank. It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that without service of order of attachment, the proclamation at site was made on 17.05.2016 by the Recovery Inspector, the Recovery Officer vide order dated 26.05.2016 directed the immovable properties be sold through public auction and further directed to evaluate the attached property through an independent valuer registered under Income Tax Act and submit the valuation report. Another order of attachment of movables properties was passed in terms of the order dated 27.10.2016 and receiver was also appointed for preparation of inventory of movable properties. Thereafter, the property was put on auction sale in terms of the order dated 11.04.2018 and order dated 30.08.2018, the property was again put on auction sale and accordingly, the notice for sale proclamation was issued and the property was put on auction sale which was duly published in the newspaper. Thereafter, the property was put on auction sale in terms of the order dated 11.04.2018 and order dated 30.08.2018, the property was again put on auction sale and accordingly, the notice for sale proclamation was issued and the property was put on auction sale which was duly published in the newspaper. In terms of the order dated 25.11.2020, the property was put on auction sale to be held on 12.03.2021 which was objected by the appellant-writ petitioner on 02.03.2021 by filing I.A. No. 88 of 2021 and to show their bona fide and willingness to liquidate the debt demand draft of Rs.51 lakhs was also submitted along with objection to the proclamation of sale and the valuation which was being reduced by the Bank repeatedly. Thereafter, the application was disposed on vide order dated 08.03.2021. The respondent-Bank also filed Appeal No. 02 of 2021 against the order dated 08.03.2021 under Section 30 of RDDBFI Act, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.02.2022. It is also the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that while the appeal was pending, the property in question was put on e-auction sale and neither the fresh valuation report was obtained nor the proclamation of sale notice contained the details of movable properties to be sold and even the value of movable was not separately shown which is in violation of Rule 53 of the second schedule and Rule 66 of Order XXI of CPC. In these circumstances, appellant-writ petitioner again preferred an objection petition being I.A. No. 74 of 2022 praying to recall the auction sale notice dated 29.11.2021, which was disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.09.2022 wherein it was observed by the Recovery Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal that the appellant-writ petitioner is ready to deposit an amount equivalent to the reserve price. Thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner filed a detailed compromise proposal but no decision was communicated to the appellant-writ petitioner. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, the e-auction was held wherein the bid of bidder being respondent No.8 was accepted. Being aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner again preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 165 of 2024 which has been dismissed by holding it not maintainable, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, the e-auction was held wherein the bid of bidder being respondent No.8 was accepted. Being aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner again preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 165 of 2024 which has been dismissed by holding it not maintainable, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the trust submitted a project report before the consortium resondent-Bank proposing the development of a Medical College and Hospital, thereafter, the bank has decided to extend consortium finance to the Trust in which PNB was the leading bank whereas UBI and Oriental Bank of Commerce were the members of the consortium. Due to the delay in the project, the repayment of term loan which was to start from August, 2010 could not be started due to change in the MCI guidelines. The Trust approached the consortium banks for re-schedulement of the loan account and finally the leading bank agreed to sanction further term loan on 26.03.2010 but other two consortium banks refused to grant further sanction in the ratio decided in the original agreement and thus, the Punjab National Bank also cancelled additional loan sanctioned in terms of the letter dated 14.12.2010. Thereafter, the consortium banks declared the account as NPA and as such, respondent-Bank initiated proceeding under SARFAESI Act by issuing notice dated 09.12.2011 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner filed representation on 21.01.2012 which got rejected and the respondent-Bank issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 09.02.2012. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant-writ petitioner filed writ petition before this Court challenging the action of the respondent-Bank, however, the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.10.2014. The bank also filed Original Application No. 154 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 26.06.2015. A recovery proceeding being R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 was also initiated for recovery of the amount due, pursuant thereto, demand notice dated 13.07.2015 was issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. The bank also filed Original Application No. 154 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 26.06.2015. A recovery proceeding being R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 was also initiated for recovery of the amount due, pursuant thereto, demand notice dated 13.07.2015 was issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner approached the bank for settlement outside the court and also deposited Rs.50 lakhs for consideration of the proposal but the same was not found acceptable and thereafter, the Recovery Officer issued Warrant of Attachment of immovable property mortgaged with the consortium bank. The proclamation at site was made on 17.05.2016 by the Recovery Inspector. The Recovery Officer vide order dated 26.05.2016 directed the immovable properties be sold through public auction. Another order of attachment of movables properties was passed in terms of the order dated 27.10.2016 and receiver was also appointed for preparation of inventory of movable properties. Thereafter, the property was put on auction sale in terms of the order dated 11.04.2018 and order dated 30.08.2018, the property was again put on auction sale and accordingly, the notice for sale proclamation was issued and the property was put on auction sale which was duly published in the newspaper. In terms of the order dated 25.11.2020, the property was put on auction sale to be held on 12.03.2021 which was objected by the appellant-writ petitioner on 02.03.2021 by filing I.A. No. 88 of 2021 and to show their bona fide and willingness to liquidate the debt demand draft of Rs.51 lakhs was also submitted along with objection to the proclamation of sale and the valuation which was being reduced by the Bank repeatedly. Thereafter, the application was disposed on vide order dated 08.03.2021. The respondent-Bank also filed Appeal No. 02 of 2021 against the order dated 08.03.2021 under Section 30 of RDDBFI Act, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.02.2022. In these circumstances, appellant-writ petitioner again preferred an objection petition being I.A. No. 74 of 2022 praying to recall the auction sale notice dated 29.11.2021, which was disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.09.2022. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, the e-auction was held wherein the bid of bidder being respondent No.8 was accepted. In these circumstances, appellant-writ petitioner again preferred an objection petition being I.A. No. 74 of 2022 praying to recall the auction sale notice dated 29.11.2021, which was disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.09.2022. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, the e-auction was held wherein the bid of bidder being respondent No.8 was accepted. Being aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner again preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 165 of 2024 which has been dismissed by holding it not maintainable, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4. The appellant-writ petitioner has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 165 of 2024 for the following reliefs: “(A) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) or order(s) in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of Order dated 08.11.2023 and 20.12.2023 (Annexure-21) passed in R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 by the Respondent no. 7 being perverse and contrary to the provisions of 2nd schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961 in as much as immovable as well as movable properties of the Petitioner attached vide order dated 13.04.2016 & 27.10.2016 have been sold by public auction through e-auction on 20.12.2023 to a sole single bidder at a through away price for Rs. 60.10 Cr. only as against the market value of Rs. 156 Cr. and circle rate of Rs. 108 Cr. without conducting any valuation of the said properties/ assets in complete defiance of its own Order dated 08.03.2021 and Order dated 28.09.2022, and as such the entire action of the Respondents in selling the property is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. (B) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) or order(s) in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of Order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure-21) passed in R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Ranchi pursuant to which settlement offer of Rs. 60 Cr. and above along with DD of Rs. 1.00 Cr. in the form of objection to the e-auction sale notice dated 08.11.2023 passed in R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 been rejected without taking into consideration of the fact that no valuation of the properties in question was conducted for fixing the Reserve Price in compliance of Order dated 28.09.2022 passed R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 and any decision on the direction to consider the compromise offer of Rs. 60 Crores made by the Petitioner. 60 Crores made by the Petitioner. (C) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), direction(s) for a direction upon the Respondents Bank to accept the amount above 15% of the bid amount for redeeming the properties which has been auction sold on 20.12.2023 in compliance of order dated 08.11.2023 passed in R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 by the Respondent No. 7 in as much as Petitioners right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been seriously infringed upon by Respondent No. 7 as the auction sale has been conducted by fixing Reserve Price of Rs. 60 Cr. based on the valuation done by the Bank in an unfair and unreasonable manner in arriving at the minimum price of the property for its sale and further that the proceedings has been conducted without following the procedure prescribed under the law which is totally perverse and unknown to procedure established under law. (D) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) or order(s) or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the nature of writ of declaration, declaring that the respondent authorities have no power and jurisdiction to sale the immovable and movable properties in contravention of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is required to followed while conducting e-auction sale and the this Hon’ble Court can interfere with auction of mortgaged property by Bank if the price is below market rates as it involves violation of constitutional right to property and under such circumstances Petitioner has right to redeem the property by making an offer higher than the bid amount. (E) Pass an appropriate interim order by directing Respondent No. 7 not to confirm sale or issue any sale certificate and deliver the possession to the successful bidder pursuant to e-auction sale conducted on 20.12.2023 in terms of order dated 08.11.2023 passed in R.P. Case No. 236 of 2015 in favour of the intending auction purchase during the pendency of the instant writ petition. (F) Pass such other order(s), direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, private respondent and auction purchaser have vehemently raised the issue of maintainability on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, private respondent and auction purchaser have vehemently raised the issue of maintainability on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. 6. The learned writ court, after taking into consideration the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy versus B. Sreenivasulu and Others reported in (2023) 2 SCC 168 ; South Indian Bank Ltd. and Others versus Naveen Mathew Philip and Another reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 435; United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , came to the conclusion by holding the writ petition as not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal, which is the subject matter of present appeal. Argument on behalf of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner: 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge: (i) The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in right perspective by dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal without taking into consideration the fact that while availing the remedy of appeal, statutory amount as provided under the provision of Rule 30 is to be deposited before the appellate forum and hence, non-deposit of the said amount, the appeal will not be maintainable and thereby, the dismissal of the writ petitioner on the ground of availability of alternative remedy is nothing but depriving the appellant-writ petitioner from the opportunity for adjudication of the dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) The appellant-writ petitioner admittedly has been declared as certificate debtor in the original proceeding issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in view of the provision of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 vide order dated 13.04.2016. The recovery proceeding has been initiated in order to recover the amount as has been assessed by the Tribunal. (ii) The appellant-writ petitioner admittedly has been declared as certificate debtor in the original proceeding issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in view of the provision of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 vide order dated 13.04.2016. The recovery proceeding has been initiated in order to recover the amount as has been assessed by the Tribunal. The Recovery Officer without taking into consideration the actual rate of the land has valued the rate of land to be at much lesser rate which the appellant-writ petitioner is not agreeing, therefore, at the objection considered by the Recovering Officer, an order was passed by the Recovery Officer on 08.03.2021 by which the proclamation of sale deed dated 25.11.2020 has been recalled with a further direction upon the certificate holder bank to collect the demand draft of Rs.51.00 lacs deposited by the certificate debtors. The said order has been modified on the basis of the objection petition being I.A. No. 74 of 2022 vide order dated 28.09.2022 with a direction upon the certificate officer to conduct a fresh valuation and file the same for further orders. (iii) It has been contended that in pursuance of the order dated 28.09.2022 there was no fresh valuation and in absence thereof, it is in utter violation of the order passed by the Recovery Officer in the recovery proceeding, the property has been auctioned and at a lesser amount, the same has been decided to be auctioned in favour of the private respondent. (iv) Learned counsel, in the aforesaid premise, has submitted that once the Recovery Officer has passed an order of the fresh valuation and in absence thereof, if any auction notice has been issued, the same is contrary to the order passed by the Recovery Officer in the recovery proceeding. (iv) Learned counsel, in the aforesaid premise, has submitted that once the Recovery Officer has passed an order of the fresh valuation and in absence thereof, if any auction notice has been issued, the same is contrary to the order passed by the Recovery Officer in the recovery proceeding. (v) Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid factual aspect, has submitted that there is error in the conduct of the Recovery Officer in the flouting its own order as was passed on 28.09.2022 and subsequently, passing of the order on 08.11.2023 and the order dated 20.12.2023, is nothing but exceeding the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer and hence, the writ petition has been filed relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. versus Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 wherein the law has been laid down that if there is any violation of the principles of natural justice then also the writ court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated, hence, the present appeal. Argument on behalf of the Respondent-Bank: 9. Mr. P.S.A. Swaroop Pati, learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant-writ petitioner that there is no non-compliance of the order passed by the Recovery Officer as was directed on 28.09.2022 rather it is the appellant-writ petitioner who after the aforesaid order has made an objection and forwarded his claim again for deposit of the money in seven installments which has been taken into consideration in the Recovery Proceeding and accordingly, the order was passed on 08.11.2023. 10. It has been contended that the argument which has been advanced that the Recovery Officer has not acted in pursuance of the order passed on 28.09.2022 with respect to the fresh valuation then it was incumbent upon the appellant-writ petitioner to make an application for furtherance of the order dated 28.09.2022. Even accepting that no fresh valuation was carried out, but in spite thereof, objection was filed agreeing to make payment in seven installments. 11. Even accepting that no fresh valuation was carried out, but in spite thereof, objection was filed agreeing to make payment in seven installments. 11. The contention has been raised that the account is non-performing asset since the year 2015 and the bank is at loss due to the suffering of the public money. 12. The ground has been taken by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appellant-writ petition is not fit to be entertained in the matter of debt recovery and by taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge has not entertained the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. 13. It has further been contended that so far as the condition of pre-depositing amount is concerned as provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, the statute is there and without challenging the validity of the said provision, it is not available for the appellant-writ petitioner to take the ground that due to the condition stipulated in filing the appeal making it pre-requisite, if the appeal has not been filed, the same cannot be available for the appellant-writ petitioner. 14. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that even otherwise accepting the pleading of the appellant-writ petitioner, the same pertains to the factual dispute, as such, the alternative remedy ought to have been availed. 15. The learned Singe Judge by taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has dismissed the writ petition by holding it not maintainable on the ground of availability of statutory remedy of appeal as provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, as such, the impugned order requires no interference. Argument on behalf of the Respondent-Auction Purchaser: 16. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the auction purchaser has accepted the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-bank. 17. Argument on behalf of the Respondent-Auction Purchaser: 16. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the auction purchaser has accepted the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-bank. 17. In addition to that, it has been submitted that he is the auction purchaser and had participated in the bid process in pursuance of the auction notice floated by the bank which was issued after the account having become NPA and after the ample opportunity having been granted to the appellant-writ petitioner for settlement of the loan amount, the appellant-writ petitioner failed which led the respondent-Bank to come out with the auction process so that the public money be secured. 18. The submission has been made that he has already deposited the money but still the property has not been handed over in his possession due to the frivolous allegation filed by the appellant-writ petitioner by giving false assurance to the respondent-Bank. 19. The argument has also been advanced that when the respondent-auction purchaser is not at fault after having deposit the amount then why he will be made to suffer and if that will be allowed, the ultimate question will be that no one will come forward to purchase the property on auction. 20. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the question which has been agitated on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner is totally based upon the factual aspect and even otherwise, the law has already been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the writ petition is not to be entertained in the matter of settlement of public money if taken as a loan/advance. 21. Learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that if the learned Single Judge based upon the aforesaid reasons has dismissed the writ petition holding it not maintainable, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. Analysis: 22. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the pleading made in the writ petition and the instant memo of appeal. 23. However, when the appeal was filed, co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed order on 27.06.2024 of maintaining status quo. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the pleading made in the writ petition and the instant memo of appeal. 23. However, when the appeal was filed, co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed order on 27.06.2024 of maintaining status quo. The said order is being referred as under : “M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital is aggrieved by the writ Court’s decision not to interfere with the auction sale of the subject property which comprised a Medical College and Hospital. 2. The writ Court referring to the statutory provisions under Rules 60 and 61 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the judgments in “Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others” 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95, “Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu and Others” (2023) 2 SCC 168 and “South Indian Bank Ltd. and Others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Another” (2023) SCC OnLine SC 435 formed an opinion that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the appellant. 3. Before dismissal of the writ petition, the writ Court passed the following order of status quo on 24th January 2024: “Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is permitted to implead the auction purchaser as party respondent no. 8. It has been submitted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while referring to the various orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal as well as the valuation report that it is surprising that the valuation of the land has considerably come down in a period of three years and the value of the property has been earmarked at Rs.60 crores. It has further been submitted that the possession of the property has not yet been taken over by the auction purchaser. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, has submitted that the possession has been handed over to the auction purchaser at around 3 P.M. today. He has also submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal. In the circumstances, noted above, let this case be listed on 30.1.2024 at 4 P.M. Until further orders, status quo as on today shall be maintained”. 4. On a Court’s query, Mr. He has also submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal. In the circumstances, noted above, let this case be listed on 30.1.2024 at 4 P.M. Until further orders, status quo as on today shall be maintained”. 4. On a Court’s query, Mr. P.A.S Pati, the learned counsel appearing for the Punjab National Bank states that during pendency of the writ petition the sale was confirmed. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 8th March 2021 passed by the Recovery Officer wherein he has recorded the following findings: “25. In view of the above, it is evident that there must be an application of mind by this court while approving/accepting the report of the approved valuer and fixing the reserve price. But it seems that the same has not been done properly in this present case which may cause substantial injury to the certificate debtors and that would amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate the subsequent proceedings. 26. Now come to the objection on the impugned proclamation of sale dated 25.11.2020. It appears from the face of the notice that the proclamation of sale notice does not contain details of movable properties to be sold and value of movables separately in violation of Rule 53 of the Second Schedule and Rule 66 Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In Ram Kishun and Others vs. State of U.P and others, Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of FCS Software Solutions Ltd. V. La Medical Devices Ltd. & Ors. Reported in (2008) 10 SCC 440 , considered a case where after confirmation of auction sale it was found that valuation of movable and immovable properties, fixation of reserve price, inventory of Plant and Machineries had not been made in proclamation of sale, nor disclosed at the time of sale notice and the said sale was set aside after its confirmation. 27. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the proclamation for sale is an important part of the proceedings and the details should be ascertained and noted with care. This will remove the basis for many a belated objection to the sale at a later date. 28. 27. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the proclamation for sale is an important part of the proceedings and the details should be ascertained and noted with care. This will remove the basis for many a belated objection to the sale at a later date. 28. To sum up it is to be noted that the properties in question were put for sell through public auction more than Five times both under Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act as well as SARFAESI Act, which only reduces the value of the Immovable and movables, but does not attract any of the bidder to come forward. Incidentally, huge expenses were occurred during procedural proceedings and publication of the sale notices. The last notice for sale was issued fixing reserve price @Rs.59.22 crores. 29. This is a Hospital & College running by a non-profitable Trust and once the value is decreasing day by day as appears from the above para, I think it proper that this account may be settled with mutual agreement and the proposal so submitted be considered in the interest of justice Since the certificate debtors have already deposited a demand draft of Rs.51.00 lacs, which shows their bonafide, this court is of the view that the proposal of compromise @ Rs.75.00 crores is fair enough to be considered and the certificate holder tank is expected to consider the same in the light of the above discussions. 30. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, I find substance in the objections raised by the certificate debtors and of the view that there are procedural lapses while accepting the valuation and fixing the reserve price as well as while issuing proclamation of sale dated 25.11.2020 in terms of the set principles of law as above and is fit to be recalled. 30. In the result, following orders is passed; Let the proclamation of sale dated 25.11.2020 be recalled The Certificate Holder Bank is directed to collect the demand draft of Rs.51.00 lacs deposited by the certificate debtors. Put up on 15.4.2021 for further orders”. 6. Besides other grounds, a question in law has been raised for consideration whether the secured creditor can put to auction sale of a valuable property reducing the valuation in successive auction notices only for the purpose of realizing a part of the debt. 7. Mr. Put up on 15.4.2021 for further orders”. 6. Besides other grounds, a question in law has been raised for consideration whether the secured creditor can put to auction sale of a valuable property reducing the valuation in successive auction notices only for the purpose of realizing a part of the debt. 7. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has referred to several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the judgment in “Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks” (1998) 8 SCC 1 to submit that the policy of the Court not to entertain a writ petition in view of alternative remedy is not an absolute rule and in circumstances as indicated in “Whirlpool Corpn.” and other cases the writ Court is required to interfere with the illegal action of the State and its instrumentalities. 8. Issue notice to the respondents under registered cover with A/D as well as through ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week. 9. Mr. P.A.S Pati, the learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank accepts notice. 10. Status quo as directed by the writ Court vide order dated 24th January 2024 shall continue till the disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal. 11. Post this matter on 1st August 2024.” 24. In pursuance of that order, the respondents have appeared. 25. Further fact which is available on record is that the co-ordinate Bench has passed an order for issuance of notice but no requisites for issuance of such notice has been filed as per the office note dated 20.07.2024. For ready reference, the said office note is being referred as under : “Reg. bench slip kept at Flag ‘X’ In view of the order dated 27/06/2024 requisites for issuance of notice upon respondents has not been filed as yet. Defect no. 3 & 6 as pointed out vide S.R. dated 21/03/2024 stand still. With regard to defect no. 6 fresh copy of pages has been filed. However, the same is not legible. This memo of appeal has been filed in time vide S.R. dated 21/03/2024. I.A. No. 6863/2024 (dtd 09/07/2024) filed on behalf of the respondent No. 8 for vacation of order of status quo granted vide order dated 27th of June 2024 is klept at Flag “I”. 6 fresh copy of pages has been filed. However, the same is not legible. This memo of appeal has been filed in time vide S.R. dated 21/03/2024. I.A. No. 6863/2024 (dtd 09/07/2024) filed on behalf of the respondent No. 8 for vacation of order of status quo granted vide order dated 27th of June 2024 is klept at Flag “I”. I.A. No. 6864/2024 (dtd 09/07/2024) filed on behalf of respondent for recall of order dated 27th of June 2024 and grant an early date of hearing of the instant appeal is kept at Flag “I-1” Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 8 has been filed are kept on record. Submitted before the Hon’ble D.B. “for Orders (with defect)”. Connected file W.P.(C) No. 165/2024 is kept below.” 26. In course of argument, Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, learned Sr. SC-I appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted today that steps have been taken and the copy has been served upon the learned counsel for the private respondent. 27. Learned counsel for the private respondent has appeared on its own since s per the office note, steps for service of notice has not been taken, however, he is ready to argue the matter. 28. We have already referred the factual aspect wherefrom it is evident that the appellant-writ petitioner admittedly was certificate debtor which declaration was given in a regular proceeding by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provision of the Act, 1993. Further admitted fact is that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal has not been challenged before any appropriate forum by the appellant-writ petitioner. 29. The respondent-Bank thereafter, has proceeded for liquidating the collateral security which was kept for collateral purpose at the time of advancing the loan by instituting a recovery proceeding. 30. The Recovery Officer has passed one order on 08.03.2021 wherein the direction has been passed, relevant part of which is being referred as under: “… 28. To sum up it is to be noted that the properties in question were put for sell through public auction more than nine times both under Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act as well as SARFAESI Act, which only reduces the value of the immovable and movables, but does not attract any of the bidder to come forward. Incidentally, huge expenses were incurred during procedural proceedings and publication of the sale notices. Incidentally, huge expenses were incurred during procedural proceedings and publication of the sale notices. The last notice for sale was issued fixing reserve price @ Rs.59.22 crores. 29. This is a Hospital & College running by a non-profitable Trust and once the value is decreasing day by day as it appears from the above para, I think it proper that this account may be settled with mutual agreement and the proposal so submitted be considered in the interest of justice. Since the certificate debtors have already deposited a demand draft of Rs.51.00 lacs, which shows their bonafide, this court is of the view that the proposal of compromise @ Rs.75.00 crores is fair enough to be considered and the certificate holder bank is expected to consider the same in the light of the above discussions. 30. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, I find substance in the objections raised by the certificate debtors and of the view that there are procedural lapses while accepting the valuation and fixing the reserve price as well as while issuing proclamation of sale dated 25.11.2020 in terms of the set principles of law as above and is fit to be recalled. In the result, following order is passed: 1. Let the proclamation of sale dated 25.11.2020 be recalled. 2. The Certificate Holder Bank is directed to collect the demand draft of Rs.51.00 lacs deposited by the certificate debtors. …” 31. Subsequent order was passed on 28.09.2022 which was on the basis of objection petition being I.A. No. 74 of 2022. The said objection petition was dealt with by the Recovery Officer directing to conduct a fresh valuation and file the same before the court for further orders. For ready reference, relevant part of said order is being referred as under: “… 10. It is well settled principal that in the case where the certificate debtors have come forward with a positive posture to make an amicable settlement of their account, the certificate holder is expected to settle the same in the best interest of their entire dues. The purpose of effecting such compromise between the parties is to put an end to the disputes. 11. The purpose of effecting such compromise between the parties is to put an end to the disputes. 11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered view to direct the certificate holder Bank to consider the compromise offer at the reserve price of Rs.60.00 crore made by the certificate debtors. Certificate debtors are directed to make a complete compromise proposal and submit the same before the Bank. In the meantime, the certificate holder is directed to conduct a fresh valuation and file the same before the court for further orders. …” 32. The reason for referring all these facts is to come to the conclusion as to whether the dispute which is being raised is a factual one. 33. The writ petitioner is having objection referring the valuation of the property which according to the appellant-writ petitioner is being sold out at a lesser price in comparison to that of the market price and for that purpose, writ petition has been preferred questioning the order passed by the Recovery Officer in consequence upon the same, the auction process was initiated by the respondent-Bank. 34. The appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.11.2023 by which the auction process had begun. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the same by not going into the merit of the issue holding the same not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. 35. The question which requires to be considered herein is that the learned Single Judge in not entertaining the writ petition on merit and holding it not maintainable is justified? 36. This Court, before answering the aforesaid issue, needs to refer herein the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of settlement of loan amount of the financial institutions. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan and Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 569 , wherein at paragraph -6 it has been observed which reads as under: “6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. (supra) has been pleased to observe at paragraphs-43, 44, 45 and 55 which read as under: “43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the Sarfaesi Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu and Ors., (2023) 2 SCC 168 , at para-36, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court which reads as under: “36. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu and Ors., (2023) 2 SCC 168 , at para-36, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court which reads as under: “36. In the instant case, although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the Sarfaesi Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of pre-deposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the 2002 Act.” 37. It is thus evident from the aforesaid judgment that the Hon'ble Apex Court has put restriction upon the High Courts in exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, i.e., for the purpose of achieving the object and intent of the Debt Recovery Act. It needs to refer herein that it was the day when the Act, 1993 was already prevalent but even then, the SARFAESI Act, 2002 came into being. The reason for this Act is that the Act, 1993 is subject to rigour process of the proceeding and as such, in order to make recovery proceeding an easy and expeditious, legislation has been made by way of enacting the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by which the recovery of the money of the financial institutions is to be recovered particularly the Bank through the proceeding and that is the fundamental reason that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down restriction upon the High Courts to entertain writ petition and in passing the ad-interim order under the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 38. 38. It needs to refer herein that the power which is to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a self-imposed restriction upon the High Court but that principle has been segregated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of recovery of public money from the borrowers who took loan/advance from the Bank and other financial institutions. 39. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has however issued notice by taking note of the order passed by the Recovery Officer dated 08.03.2021 and after appearance, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and private respondent have drawn attention of this Court towards the dispute which is factual one since the dispute is with respect to the rate of valuation of the property in question which has been kept as collateral security, therefore, this Court is of the view coupled with the rider put by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan and Ors. (supra); United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. (supra) and; Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu and Ors. (supra) that herein the issue of valuation of the mortgaged property is the question which cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in the summary proceeding like the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Conclusion: 40. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason as discussed above, is of the view that if the learned Single Judge by putting reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy versus B. Sreenivasulu and Others (supra); South Indian Bank Ltd. and Others versus Naveen Mathew Philip and Another (supra); United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and Others (supra) has passed the order holding the writ petition not maintainable, the same, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from error. 41. So far as the ground taken by the appellant-writ petitioner that due to the pre-condition provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1993 the writ petition is to be entertained, but this Court is not impressed with such argument reason being that if alternative remedy is there and the process as per the stipulation provided in the relevant statutory provision is mandatorily to be followed otherwise there will be no meaning of statutory provision. The same is based upon the principle that a thing is to be done strictly in accordance with the statutory provision and there cannot be any deviation from the statutory command. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Ors., reported in AIR (1964) SC 358, wherein it has been held at paragraph 8 as under: “....its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted....” Reference has also made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Babu Verghese and Ors. vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422 , wherein it has been at paragraphs 31 & 32 as under: “31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under: “[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three-judge bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three-judge bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognized as a statutory principle of administrative law.” Reference to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court also needs to be made in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 633 , wherein it has been held at paragraph 27 as under: “..... it is a normal rule of consideration that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself....” Reference has also made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ambay Cements & Anr., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 368 , wherein it has been held at paragraph 26 as under: “....it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed.....” Reference has also made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. Regional Direction ESIC Hyderabad & Ors. (in Civil Appeal No.5138-40/2007), reported in (2015) 7 SCC 690 , wherein it has been held at paragraph 14 as under: “14. As per the scheme of the Act, the appropriate Government alone could grant or refuse exemption. When the statute prescribed the procedure for grant or refusal of exemption from the operation of the Act, it is to be done in that manner and not in any other manner. In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, it was held that: (SCC p. 378, para 26) 26.... When the statute prescribed the procedure for grant or refusal of exemption from the operation of the Act, it is to be done in that manner and not in any other manner. In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, it was held that: (SCC p. 378, para 26) 26.... it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way.” 42. It is the settled position in law that a thing is required to be done strictly in pursuance to the provisions of law, if any deviation, then ultimately the provision as contained under the statute will have no effect. 43. In the light of the aforesaid position of law based upon the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the view that the ground which has been taken for the purpose of entertaining the writ petition that the pre-requisite amount since is to be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, is having no substance. 44. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 45. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. I Agree. - Arun Kumar Rai, J.