ORDER : LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J. IN WP.NO.25242/2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "PRAYER WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be please to:- a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ quashing the impugned Sale confirmation Letter vide Annexure- "A" dated 02.12.2022 and b) To direct the respondent not confirm the sale in favour of third party. c) To direct the respondent not to execute the sale certificate in favour of third party/ auction purchaser. d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.12.2016, Mortgage Loan was sanctioned i.e., a sum of Rs.1,00,87,000/-. The said loan facilities were secured by creation of Equitable Mortgage of the Schedule Property in favour of the respondent/Bank. According to the petitioner, the outstanding amount payable to the respondent/Bank as on the date of filing of the writ petition is an amount of Rs.95,76,999/-. It is stated that as per the Reserve Bank of India Master Circular - Prudential Norms on Income Recognition Asset Classification and Provision pertaining to Advances, in terms of Clause: 2.1.2 Non-Performing Asset (NPA) is a loan or an advance where interest and/or installment of principal amount remains over due for a period of 90 days in respect of term loans. It is the case that the account of the petitioner was never in 'out of order' situation in order to declare them as Non Performing Asset. It is stated that on 14.07.2022, the respondent/Bank had brought the secured asset under E Auction. Since there was no bidder, auction sale was dropped. It is stated that the auction was conducted on 28.07.2022 and the respondent/Bank is going to confirm the sale and sale certificate is likely to be issued on 02.12.2022. The petitioner will be deprived of his right to property and as the petitioner is not having any other efficacious remedy, he has come before this Court. 3. When this writ petition came up on 15.12.2022, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an interim order of stay of the impugned sale confirmation letter dated 02.12.2022, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the amount in due, within two weeks from 15.12.2022. 3. When this writ petition came up on 15.12.2022, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an interim order of stay of the impugned sale confirmation letter dated 02.12.2022, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the amount in due, within two weeks from 15.12.2022. It is the case of the respondent/Bank that the petitioner has deposited the money within the time but 25% of the amount comes to Rs.27 lakhs and odd but he had deposited Rs.21 lakhs and odd. It is submitted that there is non-compliance of the interim order passed by this Court. Thereafter, they have issued fresh sale notification. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the order dated 15.12.2022, he had paid the 25% of the amount due. In spite of that, the respondent/Bank went ahead with the auction. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank has placed the sale certificate and the outstanding amount before this Court. As per the sale notice, the outstanding due is an amount of Rs.1,08,79,326/- and 25% of the amount will come to Rs.27 lakhs and odd. It is submitted that as such, the order of this Court is not complied with and as it is a conditional order, they went ahead with the further proceedings. 6. In response to that, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first sale notice, the price is quoted as Rs.2,20,00,000/- and now it is quoted as Rs.1,91,00,000/-. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this writ petition, the petitioner has come before this Court questioning the Sale Confirmation Letter dated 02.12.2022. In this writ petition, the grounds that are raised are about the NPA and according to the petitioner, the petitioner's account cannot be declared as NPA and it is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In the entire writ petition, there is no whisper about the notice that is issued under 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act or the subsequent proceedings and why did the petitioner has not challenged any of that and why he is challenging the Sale Confirmation Letter that is impugned in this writ petition. In the entire writ petition, there is no whisper about the notice that is issued under 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act or the subsequent proceedings and why did the petitioner has not challenged any of that and why he is challenging the Sale Confirmation Letter that is impugned in this writ petition. On these grounds, when an opportunity is available to him after the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is issued, he has not taken any steps and he has come before this Court raising those grounds at the time of sale confirmation. This Court cannot entertain the writ petition on that ground. The submission that the petitioner has paid the money and in spite of the order, the respondent/Bank has gone ahead with the further proceedings has also no legs to stand for the reason that the conditional order was to deposit 25% of the amount which comes to Rs.27 lakhs and odd and the petitioner had paid Rs.21 lakhs and odd. After 15.12.2022, this writ petition has never come up before this Court. 8. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the fact that the petitioner had questioned the Sale Confirmation Letter and already auction is confirmed, this Court do not find any reasons to pass any orders in this writ petition. IN WP.NO.16349/2023 9. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "PRAYER WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:- a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ quashing the impugned Sale Notice dated 10.07.2023 vide Annexure-"A" issued by the Respondent and b) To direct the respondent not confirm the sale in favour of third party. c) To direct the respondent not to execute the sale certificate in favour of third party/auction purchaser. d) To direct the Respondent to regularized the loan account. e) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 10. It is stated that the outstanding amount as on the date when the writ petition is filed is Rs.95,76,999/-. The petitioner owing to certain temporary financial difficulties in the business could not repay the loan to the respondent/bank as per the contractual terms and conditions. It is stated that the outstanding amount as on the date when the writ petition is filed is Rs.95,76,999/-. The petitioner owing to certain temporary financial difficulties in the business could not repay the loan to the respondent/bank as per the contractual terms and conditions. It is stated that as per the Reserve Bank of India Master Circular - Prudential Norms on Income Recognition Asset Classification and Provision pertaining to Advances, in terms of Clause: 2.1.2 Non- Performing Asset (NPA) is a loan or an advance where interest and /or installment of principal amount remains over due for a period of 90 days in respect of term loans. It is the case that the account of the petitioner was never in 'out of order' situation in order to declare them as Non Performing Asset. It is stated that on 10.07.2023, the respondent/Bank has brought the secured asset under E Auction. 11. In WP.No.25242/2022, the petitioner was questioning the Sale Confirmation Letter. In spite of complying with the interim order, the respondent/Bank had gone ahead with the proceedings and issued Sale Notice dated 10.07.2023. In this writ petition, according to the petitioner, the Bank has failed to follow the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and declared the account as NPA. It is stated that the market value of the secured asset was an amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/-. When the petitioner is ready to clear the outstanding, the account shall not be declared as NPA. The demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is not valid since the respondent/Bank has wrongly classified the account of the petitioner as non-performing asset. The respondent/Bank has failed to apply the general guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for rehabilitation units. It is stated that the respondent/Bank has failed to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 23 of the SARFAESI Act, which was supposed to be filed within thirty days from the date of transaction, the particulars of Creation of Security interest before the Central Registry before initiating recovery proceedings under the Act. These are all the grounds that are raised in support of the writ petition. 12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an interim order on 28.07.2023. It is stated that in spite of paying the amount as per the interim order, the respondent/Bank went ahead and confirmed the sale which is bad. These are all the grounds that are raised in support of the writ petition. 12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an interim order on 28.07.2023. It is stated that in spite of paying the amount as per the interim order, the respondent/Bank went ahead and confirmed the sale which is bad. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had paid an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- within a period of two weeks. However, as per the order within next two weeks, he has to pay an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-. Admittedly, it is stated that initially he had paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs and thereafter, he had paid the amount. According to the petitioner, he had paid the entire amount. However, there is no denial of the fact that as per the time frame fixed by this Court, he had not paid the amount. It is stated that when he had paid an amount of Rs.15 lakhs, the respondent/Bank cannot confirm the sale. Learned counsel raised the same grounds with regard to NPA as in the other writ petition and that the property undervalued. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank submits that the petitioner has not complied with the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.07.2023. Further, it is stated that in fact the petitioner had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing SA.No.208/2022 questioning the possession notice dated 09.04.2022. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the same was dismissed for default on 12.06.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/Bank that earlier an amount of Rs.21 lakhs and odd which was paid by the petitioner was refunded by the bank. Learned counsel further submits that now the auction is concluded and the sale certificate was issued on 29.09.2023 itself and in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the possession was not delivered to the auction purchaser. It is submitted that when the auction notice is issued, the borrower will lose his right to redeem the mortgage. He had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sanjay Sharma Vs. It is submitted that when the auction notice is issued, the borrower will lose his right to redeem the mortgage. He had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sanjay Sharma Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. arising out of SLP(C) No.330/2017 dated 10.12.2024 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex court had considered the earlier judgment in case of Celir LLP Vs. Ms. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Others arising out of Contempt Petition (C) Nos.158-159 of 2024 in Civil Appeal Nos.5542-5543/2023 . The order reads as follows: "218. Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already confirmed or concluded ought not to be set aside or interfered with lightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule that does not have any fundamental procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such a proceeding. In such cases courts, in particular, should be mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confirmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity." 14. It is submitted that now the respondent/Bank cannot redeem the mortgage. It is submitted that the petitioner had approached the DRT, he has not even stated before this Court in this writ petition and even on that count also, there is suppression of facts and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser submits that on 29.09.2023, though the entire money is paid, till now, the possession is not delivered by the Bank in view of the pending litigation before this Court. It is submitted that in spite of paying a huge amount, the auction purchaser is not able to enjoy the fruits of the same. 16. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner had filed WP.No.25242/2022 questioning the Sale Confirmation letter. It is submitted that in spite of paying a huge amount, the auction purchaser is not able to enjoy the fruits of the same. 16. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner had filed WP.No.25242/2022 questioning the Sale Confirmation letter. In that, there was an interim order initially and thereafter, it has never seen the light of the day, 25% of the amount comes to Rs.27 lakhs and odd was not paid as per the interim order and the bank has refunded the amount and went ahead with the auction. At that point of time, this writ petition was filed. An interim order dated 28.07.2023 was passed fixing the timeline for paying the amount. There is no dispute about the fact that the timeline was not adhered and the respondent/Bank went ahead with the auction. However, the docket order shows that the interim order was extended and admittedly, he had not complied with the first order. Now, the auction purchaser is also before this Court. This auction was confirmed in the year 2023. From the year 2023 till 2025, the possession was not delivered to the auction purchaser because of the pendency of this writ petition. When the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of going before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and having approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, without pursuing the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, he has come before this Court by filing these writ petitions and he has not disclosed about filing of the SA before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 17. This Court has perused WP.Nos.16349/2023 and 25242/2022. In both the writ petitions, the same grounds are extracted. In both the cases, the grounds are taken on the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act declaring the account as NPA. But in none of these petitions, there is no whisper about when the account being declared as NPA, when the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued and what is the reply to the notice, whether he has taken all these grounds in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, nothing has been stated. It appears that for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has mechanically filed the writ petition and obtained the interim order. It appears that for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has mechanically filed the writ petition and obtained the interim order. Even when an interim order is passed, he has not complied with the order. Unless and until the auction is set aside on the ground of fraud irregularity, the petitioner is not entitled for redemption of mortgage once the auction notice is issued. In these circumstances, this Court cannot set aside the sale and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot consider any of the grounds that are raised by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, WP.Nos.16349/2023 and 25242/2022 are dismissed ii. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. iii. The Debt Recovery Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law. iv. All I.As. in these petitions shall stand closed.