ORDER : 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order at Annexure-A dated 30.09.2025 forfeiting the deposit amount of Rs.10,10,000/- deposited by the petitioner, and also sought a mandamus directing the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The respondent-Bank has tendered ‘E’ auction notification. The petitioner participated in ‘E’ auction conducted by the respondent-Bank on 26.06.2025 and the petitioner was the successful bidder and petitioner deposited earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/- at the time of e-auction and deposited Rs.6,10,000/- being the 25% of the bid amount, totally the petitioner has deposited Rs.10,10,000/-. The respondent-Bank issued a confirmation letter of sale to the petitioner on 27.06.2025. The petitioner requested the respondent-Bank to extend the time for payment of remaining balance consideration amount. The respondent-Bank issued an impugned endorsement vide Annexure-A forfeiting the deposited amount of Rs.10,10,000/- without considering the request of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the e-auction notification, the petitioner participated in the e-auction and he was the successful bidder and he has deposited 25% of the bid amount. The petitioner could not deposit the balance amount within time. He submits that the petitioner submitted an application for extension of time to deposit the balance consideration amount. He submits that the respondent-Bank issued an impugned endorsement forfeiting the deposited amount. He submits that the action of the respondent-Bank in forfeiting the amount is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner was supposed to deposit the balance consideration amount within 15 days from confirmation of sale of immovable property or such extended period. He submits that the petitioner has not deposited the amount within 15 days from the date of confirmation of sale. Hence, the respondent-Bank has rightly forfeited the deposited amount. The auction of the respondent-Bank is in accordance with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules’). Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. He submits that the petitioner has not deposited the amount within 15 days from the date of confirmation of sale. Hence, the respondent-Bank has rightly forfeited the deposited amount. The auction of the respondent-Bank is in accordance with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules’). Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Is it is an undisputed fact that the respondent-Bank has put the property in auction, and issued a paper publication fixing the date for auction of the property in person on 26.06.2025. The petitioner participated in the auction proceedings and he was the highest bidder, and his bid was accepted. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited earned EMD amount of Rs.4,00,000/-and at the time of e-auction, deposited Rs.6,10,000/-. Thus, in all, the petitioner deposited Rs.10,10,000/-. The Bank has issued a confirmation letter of sale vide letter dated 27.06.2025. The petitioner ought to have deposited the balance amount within 15 days from the date of confirmation of sale. In the default, the bank has got a right to forfeit the said amount. 8. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which reads as follows: “9. Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc. (1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to Sub- Rule (6) of Rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower: Provided further that if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale. (2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorized officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor: Provided that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-rule (5) of [rule 8] Provided further that if the authorized officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price. (3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e. on the same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five per cent. of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again; (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period [as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months. (5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] [Inserted by Notification No. G.S.R. 1046 (E), dated 3.11.2016 (w.e.f. 20.9.2002).] and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. (6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorized officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these rules. (6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorized officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these rules. (7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances, the authorized officer may, if he thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and interest as may be determined by him. (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorized officer may issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him and take steps to make the payment accordingly. (9) The authorized officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-rule (7) above. (10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not.” 9. Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2002 provides that no sale of immovable property under the rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule 6 of Rule 8. 10. Rule 9(2) of Rules, 2002 provides that the sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid. 11. Rule 9(3) of Rules, 2002 provides that upon the sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall on the same day or not later than next working day deposit 25% of the bid amount of the sale price which is inclusive of EMD, if any to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit the property shall be sold again. 12. 12. Rule 9(4) of Rules, 2022 provides that the balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period. 13. Rule 9(5) of Rules, 2022 provides that in case of default in payment of balance amount as contemplated in sub-rule (4), the authorized officer shall forfeit all claims to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited the balance sale amount within 15 days from the date of confirmation of a sale. The Authorised Officer has forfeited the deposited amount as per Rule 9(5) of Rules, 2022. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in Canara Bank vs. Subramanya Rao K. and Another in W.A. N o . 349/2024 disposed off on 16.10.2024 in para No.5.3, reads as follows: 5.3 The mandatory character of Rule 9(5) of the Rules, 2002 was highlighted in Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to observe that Rule 9(5) confers express power on the secured creditor, to forfeit the deposit made by the auction purchaser in case the auction purchaser commits any default in paying the installment of sale money to the secured creditor: “We also notice that Rule 9(5) confers express power on the secured creditor to forfeit the deposit made by the auction-purchaser in case the auction-purchaser commits any default in paying instalment of sale money to the secured creditor.” (Para 28) 16. The respondent-Bank considering Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 has rightly forfeited the amount deposited by the petitioner. I do not find any error in the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent-Bank. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : The writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.