ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. The issues involved and the reliefs sought in the present writ petitions are similar. Therefore, they are being decided together vide the present common order. 2. Heard Sri E.Ajay Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. E.Anisha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.27310 of 2024, Sri M.Hareesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.26832 of 2024 and Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents. 3. The brief facts are that Respondent No. 2 had issued an e- auction notification dated 04.08.2023 for sale of 17 open plots in Budvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. In the said e-auction notification, Respondent No. 2 advertised that the plots offered for sale were owned by the Government of Telangana and were ‘100% encumbrance free’. The notification stated that the earnest money deposit was Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (three crore only) and the first installment (33% of the sale amount) was to be paid within 07 days of the date of issuance of letter of offer and the second and final installment (the balance sale amount) was to be paid within 30 (thirty) days from the date of auction. Clause 14 (ii) of the Special Terms and Conditions (annexed to the e-auction notification) stated that a pre-final letter would be issued after the full and final payment of the sale amount. Likewise, Clause 14 (iii) stated that after the issuance of the pre-final letter, the authorised representative of the Respondents will undertake the process of conveyance and execute a sale deed in favour of the successful bidders. 4. Pursuant to the said e-auction notification, the Petitioners herein participated in the auction on 10.08.2023 and submitted their respective bids. 5. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024 offered a bid amount of Rs. 33,75,00,000/- (thirty-three crores seventy-five lakhs only) per acre and she was selected as the highest bidder in relation to Plot No. 14 which admeasured 16.13 acres. The total sale price in relation to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024 for Plot No. 14 was Rs. 206,88,75,000/- (two hundred and six crores eighty- eight lakhs seventy-five thousand only). According to the terms of the e-auction notification, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter of offer dated 11.08.2023 to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024. On 18.08.2023, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024 paid the first installment of Rs. 206,88,75,000/- (two hundred and six crores eighty- eight lakhs seventy-five thousand only). According to the terms of the e-auction notification, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter of offer dated 11.08.2023 to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024. On 18.08.2023, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024 paid the first installment of Rs. 68,27,28,750/- (sixty-eight crore twenty-seven lakhs twenty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty only). This was followed by Respondent No. 2 issuing a confirmation-cum- allotment letter dated 22.08.2023 with a condition to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 135,61,46,250/- (one hundred and thirty-five crores sixty-one lakhs forty-six thousand two hundred and fifty only) within a period of 30 (thirty) days. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024 paid the balance sale amount on 08.09.2023. Respondent No. 2 issued a pre-final allotment dated 07.10.2023 letter which confirmed the receipt of the entire sale consideration by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024. 6. Likewise, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of 2024 offered a bid of Rs. 41,75,00,000/- (forty-one crores seventy-five lakhs only) per acre and was selected as the highest bidder in relation to Plot No. 15 which admeasured 7.16 acres. The total sale price in relation to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of 2024 for Plot No. 15 was Rs. 298,93,00,000/- (two hundred and ninety-eight crores ninety-three lakhs only). According to the terms of the e-auction notification, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter of offer dated 11.08.2023 to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of 2024. On 18.08.2023, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of 2024 paid the first installment of Rs. 98,64,69,000/- (ninety-eight crores sixty-four lakhs sixty-nine thousand only). Respondent No. 2 issued a confirmation-cum-allotment letter dated 22.08.2023 confirming the payment of the first installment and stating that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 197,28,31,000/- (one hundred and ninety- seven crores twenty-eight lakhs thirty-one thousand only) shall be paid within 30 (thirty) days. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of 2024 paid the balance sale amount on 08.09.2023. Respondent No. 2 issued a pre-final allotment dated 07.10.2023 letter which confirmed the receipt of the entire sale consideration by the said Petitioner. 7. While the conveyance and handing over of the plots viz., Plot No. 14 and Plot No. 15 was pending, both the Petitioners allege that, they got to know that the plots sold to them were under litigation. 7. While the conveyance and handing over of the plots viz., Plot No. 14 and Plot No. 15 was pending, both the Petitioners allege that, they got to know that the plots sold to them were under litigation. Both the Petitioners state that on 08.08.2023 i.e., two days before the e-auction, a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 was filed by one Korani Ravinder and his brother seeking stay of the e-auction. In the said writ petition, the said Ravinder and his brother claimed that they were the owners of land admeasuring 4.19 acres in Sy. No. 288/4. According to the Petitioners, Sy. No. 288/4 falls in Plot Nos. 14 and 15 which were purchased by them. On 09.08.2023 i.e., one day before the auction, a learned single judge of this Court passed an interim order in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 permitting the e-auction to happen subject to Respondent No. 2 making an endorsement on the ‘sale allotment letter’ that the sale in respect of Plot Nos. 14 and 15 will be confirmed subject to the outcome of the said writ petition. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted below: Accordingly, respondent authorities can go ahead with the e-auction proposed to be held on 10.08.2023, however the respondent authorities are directed to make an endorsement on the sale allotment letter in respect of the Plots Nos.14 and 15 stating that the said plots will be confirmed subject to the outcome of this writ petition. 8. After receiving information about the pending writ petition, the Petitioners addressed multiple representations to Respondent No. 2 seeking refund of the full amounts paid by them along with 18% interest. In response to their representations, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 09.11.2023 acknowledging the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 and assured them that if any unfavourable orders were passed in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 by March 2024 or earlier, they would refund the entire amount with interest. In response to their representations, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 09.11.2023 acknowledging the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 and assured them that if any unfavourable orders were passed in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 by March 2024 or earlier, they would refund the entire amount with interest. The relevant portion of the letter dated 09.11.2023 is extracted below: In this regard, it is to inform that the title and possession of the petitioner(s) has not proved at all and the said land is under the custody of HMDA since 26- 12-2007 and with regard to the above Writ Petition, the HMDA entrusted the matter to the Advocate General owing to the importance of the Layout and necessary possible steps will be taken for dismissal of the above Writ Petition at the earliest preferably before March, 2024. However, on careful examination of your representation submitted vide reference 7 cited, it is to inform that, if any unfavorable orders issued in this matter latest by March, 2024 or earlier, the HMDA/Government will refund the total sale price paid by you in respect of the above plot along with admissible interest. 9. Despite the above assurance, W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 remained pending. The Petitioners addressed representations but received no response. Therefore, they have filed the present writ petitions seeking a full refund of the payments made by them along with an interest of 18% per annum. 10. The Petitioners contend that Respondent No. 2 has acted contrary to the advertisement and e-auction notification which promised sale of unencumbered land. They contend that W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 was filed before the auction dated 10.08.2023. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 ought to have informed them about the pending litigation. Further, they contend that Respondent No. 2 had suppressed the factum of pending W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 and the order dated 09.08.2023. According to them, Respondent No. 2 obtained full payments running into crores of rupees without informing them about the litigation. The Petitioners term the action of Respondent No. 2 as illegal and arbitrary. They seek refund of the amounts paid by them along with an interest of 18% per annum. 11. In response to the contentions of the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It contended that in contractual matters, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. They seek refund of the amounts paid by them along with an interest of 18% per annum. 11. In response to the contentions of the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It contended that in contractual matters, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. It further contended that there was no suppression of either the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 or the order dated 09.08.2023. The order copy of order dated 09.08.2023 was received by their office only on 24.08.2023. Therefore, it could not inform about the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 or about the order dated 09.08.2023. 12. Arguendo, Respondent No. 2 contends that the order dated 09.08.2023 only states that the endorsement should be made on the ‘sale allotment letter’ which only comes at a later stage i.e., after payment of money and issuance of pre-final allotment letter. Further, as on the date of the issuance of e-auction notification i.e., 04.08.2023, the property was free from encumbrances and litigation. Therefore, it was argued that the property was unencumbered when the advertisement was made. Another contention of Respondent No. 2 was that the property was sold on ‘as is where is’ basis and the principles of caveat emptor and estoppel apply. 13. The only question before this Court is whether the actions of Respondent No. 2 entitle the Petitioners to resile from the sale transaction and claim a refund. 14. Before deciding the said question, this Court would like to deal with the preliminary objection concerning the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is trite law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Courts shall be slow in interfering with contractual matters concerning the Government. However, in cases where the State has acted in an arbitrary or unfair or irrational manner or has failed to act reasonably, a writ petition will be maintainable. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following paragraphs of Unitech Ltd. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. , [ (2021) 16 SCC 35 .] 39.4. If the State instrumentality violates its constitutional mandate under Article 14 to act fairly and reasonably, relief under the plenary powers of Article 226 of the Constitution would lie. This principle was recognised in ABL International [ ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. , [ (2021) 16 SCC 35 .] 39.4. If the State instrumentality violates its constitutional mandate under Article 14 to act fairly and reasonably, relief under the plenary powers of Article 226 of the Constitution would lie. This principle was recognised in ABL International [ ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. , (2004) 3 SCC 553 ] : (ABL International case [ ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. , (2004) 3 SCC 553 ] , SCC p. 572, para 28) “28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [ Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks , (1998) 8 SCC 1 ] .) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied) 39.5. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court is entitled to enquire into whether the action of the State or its instrumentalities is arbitrary or unfair and in consequence, in violation of Article 14. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is a valuable constitutional safeguard against an arbitrary exercise of State power or a misuse of authority. 39.6. In determining as to whether the jurisdiction should be exercised in a contractual dispute, the Court must, undoubtedly eschew, disputed questions of fact which would depend upon an evidentiary determination requiring a trial. But equally, it is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted only on the basis that the dispute pertains to the contractual arena. In determining as to whether the jurisdiction should be exercised in a contractual dispute, the Court must, undoubtedly eschew, disputed questions of fact which would depend upon an evidentiary determination requiring a trial. But equally, it is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted only on the basis that the dispute pertains to the contractual arena. This is for the simple reason that the State and its instrumentalities are not exempt from the duty to act fairly merely because in their business dealings they have entered into the realm of contract. Similarly, the presence of an arbitration clause does (sic not) oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though, it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be invoked. 39.7. The jurisdiction under Article 226 was rightly invoked by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this case, when the foundational representation of the contract has failed. Tsiic, a State instrumentality, has not just reneged on its contractual obligation, but hoarded the refund of the principal and interest on the consideration that was paid by Unitech over a decade ago. It does not dispute the entitlement of Unitech to the refund of its principal. 15. In view of the above decision and the reasons stated in the following paragraphs this Court holds that the State i.e., Respondent No. 2 herein has acted unfairly and arbitrarily. Therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. 16. It is not disputed that Respondent No. 2 had advertised that all the properties were owned by the Government of Telangana and were free from all encumbrances. The offer to sell was intrinsically linked with the guarantee that the subject plots were litigation free. It is only reasonable for the prospective bidders like the present Petitioners to believe that the title over the properties is clear, more so when huge amounts are sought to be invested. Keeping this in mind, this Court would like to point out certain dates. 17. On 04.08.2023, the e-auction notification was released. The e-auction was to be conducted on 10.08.2023. W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 was filed on 08.08.2023 and an interim order was passed on 09.08.2023. The said interim order notes that Respondent No. 2 was duly represented by its standing counsel. 17. On 04.08.2023, the e-auction notification was released. The e-auction was to be conducted on 10.08.2023. W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 was filed on 08.08.2023 and an interim order was passed on 09.08.2023. The said interim order notes that Respondent No. 2 was duly represented by its standing counsel. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 cannot contend that they were not aware of the order or the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 till they received the order copy i.e., on 24.08.2023 cannot be accepted. 18. At this stage, it is apt to note that as stated supra, Sri Korani Ravinder and his brother filed the aforesaid W.P.No.21467 of 2023 challenging the proposed auction scheduled on 10.08.2023. This Court granted interim order dated 09.08.2023, after hearing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent. 19. In W.P.No.21467 of 2023, Sri B.Kishan Rao, Estate Officer of HMDA (Respondent No.2 herein) filed counter affidavit stating that on 09.08.2023, they have received e-mail from their Standing Counsel i.e. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, informing them of filing of W.P.No.21467 of 2023 and order passed by this Court that the auction is scheduled on 10.08.2023 will be subject to the result of the Writ petition. It was further informed that further steps after auction may be taken after perusal of copy of the said order. 20. It is further contended that the interim order dated 09.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.21467 of 2023 was not received by 2 nd respondent till the time of issuance of letter of offers/allotments to the H.1 Bidders on 11.08.2023. However, on receipt of the said order, it was informed to the successful bidders. 21. In the light of the same, 2 nd respondent cannot contend that they are not aware of the order dated 09.08.2023 in W.P.No.21467 of 2023. The said contention of 2 nd respondent cannot accepted. 22. It is also apt to note that petitioners herein are into real estate business. It is their specific contention that they have participated in the auction for the purpose of development of the subject property into flats/villas on obtaining permission from the authorities concerned. Therefore, necessarily they have to register themselves in terms of Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 . It is their specific contention that they have participated in the auction for the purpose of development of the subject property into flats/villas on obtaining permission from the authorities concerned. Therefore, necessarily they have to register themselves in terms of Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 . Section 3 (1) of the Act, 2016 says no promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale or invite persons in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without registering a real estate project with the Real Regulatory Authority established under this Act. As per Section 3 (2) of the Act, where the area of land proposed to be developed exceeds 500 sq.meters, the promoter shall necessarily register with RERA. Section 4 deals with application for registration of real estate project and it has to disclose all the pending litigations. 23. As per Rule 3(B) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017, the promoter shall disclose pending cases/litigation if any on the subject property and as per Rule 3(B) (2) of the Rules, the promoter shall necessarily declare that it has clear title in respect of the subject property. 24. In the light of the same, petitioners cannot be expected to participate in the auction to purchase the property which is in litigation. Petitioners cannot be expected to purchase litigation by paying huge money. It is also the specific contention of the petitioners that they have quoted the aforesaid price believing that the subject property is free from litigation / unencumbered. 25. Being aware of the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 and the order dated 09.08.2023, Respondent No. 2 was bound to disclose the same to the Petitioners herein. Instead of informing the Petitioners at the earliest, Respondent No. 2 remained mute and accepted full payments running into crores. It was only after the Petitioners herein wrote to Respondent No. 2, that the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 and the order dated 09.08.2023 was acknowledged. 26. Instead of informing the Petitioners at the earliest, Respondent No. 2 remained mute and accepted full payments running into crores. It was only after the Petitioners herein wrote to Respondent No. 2, that the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 and the order dated 09.08.2023 was acknowledged. 26. Even if this Court accepts the argument of Respondent No. 2 that they got to know about W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 only on 24.08.2023, this Court cannot hold that the Petitioners are not entitled for a refund and have to necessarily wait till the disposal of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023. As stated above, one of the essential terms of the e-auction and sale was that the property would be free from litigation. It was before the auction that W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 was filed. Further, the averments in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 show that the Petitioners therein claims to be in possession of the land falling in Plots Nos. 14 and 15. They also seem to claim that the land in question is an assigned land and that he has documentary proof in the form of assignment proceedings, pattadar passbook and title deed. Bona fide purchasers like the present Petitioners cannot be expected to invest money and be subjected to what seems like a long-drawn litigation involving third parties. 27. Respondent No. 2, arguendo, contended that the order dated 09.08.2023 stated that the endorsement should be made on ‘sale allotment letter’ and therefore, Respondent No. 2 was not bound to inform about W.P. No. 21467 of 2023. The said argument is puerile to say the least. As stated above, one of the main points of advertisement was that the plots were free from litigation. Therefore, as a seller and moreover as a State instrumentality, Respondent No. 2 was to inform the Petitioners about the pending litigation at the earliest. 28. There is another reason why the actions of Respondent No. 2 are arbitrary. As seen from the extracted portion of the letter dated 09.11.2023, Respondent No. 2 itself had stated that necessary steps will be taken to get W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 dismissed by March 2024. The said letter also stated that if any unfavourable orders are passed in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023, the entire money will be refunded. Admittedly, W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 is still pending. The said letter also stated that if any unfavourable orders are passed in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023, the entire money will be refunded. Admittedly, W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 is still pending. 2 nd respondent herein filed counter in the said writ petition only on 08.09.2023 and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, filed counter on 05.09.2023 and additional counter only on 18.10.2024. Therefore, having stated that the money will be refunded in the absence of a favourable outcome, Respondent No. 2 cannot continue to withhold the payments made by the Petitioners. 29. At this juncture, this Court would like to express its dismay over Respondent No. 2’s arguments in relation to the letter dated 09.11.2023. Respondent No. 2 contended that as no ‘unfavourable orders’ are passed in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023, the amount cannot be refunded in terms of the letter dated 09.11.2023. The argument of Respondent No. 2 seems to suggest that till unfavourable orders are passed, they will not refund the payments made by the Petitioners. The said argument cannot be accepted. As stated above, the Petitioners cannot be expected to wait and part with such huge sums of money till a pending litigation, of which they were not aware, is resolved. 30. The other argument of Respondent No. 2 was that the subject plots were sold on ‘as is where is’ basis. Therefore, the principle of caveat emptor will apply and the Petitioners having satisfied themselves regarding the suitability of the properties cannot challenge the auction sale. The said argument, which at the first blush seems convincing, is untenable. Even if the subject plots were sold on ‘as is where is’ basis, the Petitioners could not have known about the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023. 31. Further, the ‘as is where is’ clause in Annexure II of the e-auction notification deals with the physical aspects and suitability of land. It does not speak of cautioning the buyer regarding any encumbrances. The said clause is extracted below: 8. The open plot notified for sale will be sold through e-Auction on “as is where is” basis. 31. Further, the ‘as is where is’ clause in Annexure II of the e-auction notification deals with the physical aspects and suitability of land. It does not speak of cautioning the buyer regarding any encumbrances. The said clause is extracted below: 8. The open plot notified for sale will be sold through e-Auction on “as is where is” basis. Hence the bidders should inspect the lots / open plots and satisfy themselves in all aspects before bidding, as otherwise it is deemed that the bidder has inspected the land parcel(s) and satisfied himself/herself regarding the suitability of plots in all respects for construction and no claims of any nature are maintainable against HMDA/SELLER. 32. It is relevant to note that where State or its instrumentalities are involved in the auctioning properties, there is a presumption that such properties are free from encumbrances. There is also a reasonable and legitimate expectation that encumbrances, if any, will be informed to the participants in the auction. The State when participates in a commercial activity is expected to act like a scrupulous businessman. The commercial considerations should be balanced with the duty to act fairly. Bonafide auction purchasers cannot be made to run from pillar to post to enjoy the fruits of the property. Likewise, where the property was not free from encumbrances and the same was never informed to the buyer or where the buyer was not cautioned about the possibility of existing encumbrances, the State shall refund the payments made by such a buyer. Using ‘as is where is’ clauses to try to sell encumbered properties does not bode-well for the State. In this regard, the following paragraphs of Mandava Krishna Chaitanya v. UCO Bank , [22018 SCC OnLineHyd 196.] , are relevant: 23. Further, the concept of ‘as is where is’ and ‘as is what is’ basis has lost its significance in the current commercial milieu and the principle of caveat venditor is more on the rise as compared to the outdated principle of caveat emptor . The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, requires the seller to own up to certain duties and it is not open to a responsible bank to take an innocent auction purchaser for a ride by selling to him a tainted property and thereafter claim protection under the principles of ‘buyer beware’. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, requires the seller to own up to certain duties and it is not open to a responsible bank to take an innocent auction purchaser for a ride by selling to him a tainted property and thereafter claim protection under the principles of ‘buyer beware’. The counter-affidavit filed by the bank clearly demonstrates that the bank undertook no exercise whatsoever to verify and ascertain as to what encumbrances attached to the subject property at any stage. No details are forthcoming of any efforts having been made by the bank, be it before the registration authorities or any other authority at any stage. Now, it has come to light that the property in question is tainted on grounds more than one. It falls within the full tank level of a lake and, surprisingly, it is also treated as a ceiling surplus land. That apart, the possession of the property cannot even be handed over by the bank to the petitioner as the sale was effected without the bank securing actual physical possession thereof and the bank does not deny the factum of a lease having been created by the borrower in relation thereto. The bank therefore cannot comply with the statutory mandate of delivering actual possession of the property sold under the sale certificate. The decisions of various Courts referred to supra would come to the aid of the petitioner in this regard. That apart, the registration authorities already indicated to the petitioner that the subject land is noted as a ceiling surplus land. Therefore, even if they do entertain the sale certificate issued by the bank for registration, it would be subject to this cloud and would not amount to clear conveyance of title. It is therefore manifest that the bank made the innocent petitioner a victim by failing to exercise due diligence, not only in terms of the statutory scheme of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules of 2002, but also in its own commercial interest, let alone public interest, when it accepted this property as security for the loan sanctioned by it. This utter carelessness on the part of the bank in sanctioning loans, by use of public monies, on the strength of secured assets which are not even worthy of being mortgaged, requires to be deprecated in the strongest terms. This utter carelessness on the part of the bank in sanctioning loans, by use of public monies, on the strength of secured assets which are not even worthy of being mortgaged, requires to be deprecated in the strongest terms. Banks necessarily have to exercise more care and caution while using public monies available with them, be it through deposits by customers or otherwise, when sanctioning loans without caution or worse and cannot be permitted to claim protection under outdated legal principles so as to victimize innocent auction purchasers, such as the petitioner. This Court therefore has no hesitation in holding that the auction sale held by the bank, without even exercising minimum care to ascertain the encumbrances attaching to the subject property and without informing the petitioner or other bidders of the same, vitiates the sale proceedings, culminating in issuance of the sale certificate which is yet to be registered. 33. Therefore, this Court holds that Respondent No. 2 failed to act in a fair and reasonable manner. The Petitioners are entitled to a full refund of the amounts paid by them. In Mandava Krishna Chaitanya (supra), uniform rate of interest in like cases was noted to be 18% per annum. The Petitioners are entitled to the same from the date of deposit till the date of realization. 34. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petitions are allowed and the following directions are passed: i. In W.P. No. 26832 of 2024, Respondent No. 2 is directed to refund the total amount of Rs.206,88,75,000/- (two hundred and six crores eighty-eight lakhs seventy-five thousand only) along with 18% interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realization; ii. In W.P. No. 27310 of 2024, Respondent No. 2 is directed to refund the total amount of Rs. 298,93,00,000/- (two hundred and ninety-eight crores ninety-three lakhs only) along with 18% interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realization; iii. Respondent No. 2 shall refund the said amounts within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.