K. Chandra Sheker Reddy vs State Bank Of India

Heard Mr. Pasham Mohith Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Narender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 3; and Mr. K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(i) Declaring the action of the respondents bank authorities in rejecting the amounts paid by the petitioner vide its rejection letter dated 23.12.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the same;

(ii) Direct the respondents to forthwith accept the demand drafts vide DD No.502963 drawn on ICICI Bank, Barkatpura Branch for INR 1,83,75,000/- (One crore eighty three lakhs seventy five thousand) and DD No.502962 drawn on ICICI Bank, Barkatpura branch for INR 93,75,000/- (Ninety three lakhs seventy five thousand only) totally amounting to INR 2,77,50,000/- (Two crores seventy seven lakhs fifty thousand only) in furtherance of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.8191 of 2020;

(iii) Direct the respondents to issue a sale certificate to the petitioner with respect to the properties bearing Ac.3-27 gts in Sy. No.113; Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.113/e; Ac.3.26 gts in Sy.No.113/a/a/2; Ac.3.26 gts in Sy.No.113/aa/1; Ac.3.27 gts in Sy.No.113/aa, totally admeasuring Ac.17.26 gts situated at Vemula Village and Gram Panchayat, Midgil Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule a’ property) and with respect to land admeasuring Ac.8-34 gts in Sy.No.120/2a situated at Vemula Village and Gram Panchayat, Midgil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule b’ property) and;

(iv) Pass such order or other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Petitioner had earlier approached this Court for quashing of e-auction sale of Schedule-A property and Schedule-B property. The said writ petition was registered as W.P. No.8191 of 2020 and was disposed of by this Court vide the order dated 30.11.2021. Facts of the case as narrated in the final order dated 30.11.2021 may be extracted hereunder:

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in e-auctioning schedule A and schedule B properties, by withholding the details of the properties, is illegal and arbitrary, being violative of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly ‘the SARFAESI Act’ hereinafter) and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (briefly ‘the SARFAESI Rules’ hereinafter).

2.1 Further prayer made is to set aside the e- auction notice dated 24.01.2020 and the consequential auction held on 16.03.2020.

2.2 A related prayer has been made for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to return the amounts paid by the petitioner following auction held on 16.03.2020 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

Case of the petitioner is that he is a businessman and is engaged in the business of construction and real estate. When he came to know about the auction sale of schedule – A and schedule – B properties, he made enquiries with respondents 1 and 2.

At this stage, details of schedule–A and schedule–B properties may be mentioned, and those are as under:

“Schedule A property

Property admeasuring Acs.3.27 gts. In Sy.No.113; Ac.3.00 Gts in Sy.No.113/e; Ac.3.26 gts. in Sy.No.113/aa/2; Ac.3.26 gts in Sy.No.113/aa/1; Ac.3.27 gts in Sy.No.113/aa, totally admeasuring Acs.17.26 gts situated at Vemula village and Gram Panchayat, Midgil Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

Schedule B property

Land admeasuring Acs.8.34 gts. in Sy.No.120/2A situated at Vemula village and Grampanchaayt, Midgil Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.”

It appears that respondent No.3 had obtained loan from respondent No.1, but failed to repay the same, for which, respondents 1 and 2 initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, against respondent No.3, where-after, e-auction notice dated 24.01.2020 was issued, scheduling the e-auction of the schedule A and B properties on 16.03.2020.

5.1 Petitioner participated in the auction for both the properties and emerged as the successful bidder.

5.2 In terms of the auction notice, petitioner paid an amount of Rs.61,25,000.00 (Rupees sixty one lakhs, twenty five thousand only) for the schedule–A property, and also paid Rs.31,25,000.00 (Rupeers thirty one lakhs, twenty five thousand only) for the schedule–B property on 16.03.2021 itself.

5.3 It may be mentioned that on 16.03.2020, respondent No.1 issued sale confirmation letter to the petitioner.

5.4 Though the remaining amounts as per the bids were to be paid by 31.03.2020, because of the outbreak of the pandemic and the resultant lock down, the same could not be paid.

5.5 Petitioner addressed letter dated 28.03.2020 to respondents 1 and 2 for extension of time for payment of the remaining amounts. Extension was granted by respondent No.1 from time to time. However, by letter dated 30.05.2020, petitioner was called upon to make the balance payments by 10.06.2020 contending that ninety days period as prescribed under Rule 9 of the SARFAESI Rules, would come to an end by that date.

5.6 As the lock down was relaxed progressively from 01.06.2020 onwards, petitioner visited schedule–A and schedule–B properties. On such visit, he found that there were no approach road to either of the two properties.

5.7 Petitioner immediately wrote to respondents 1 and 2 on 03.06.2020 about the above fact, further stating that the description of the properties in the e-auction was misleading and that basic information was withheld from the bidders, who had participated in the auction, including the petitioner that there was no passage or pathway to the schedule properties.

5.8 In this connection, petitioner made a request to the competent Tahsildar on 03.06.2020 and in response thereto, Tahsildar informed the petitioner on 08.06.2020 about the report of the Mandal Surveyor with map, as per which, there was no path to the two schedule properties.

5.9 Alleging that there was misrepresentation on the part of respondents 1 and 2, thereby inducing the petitioner to participate in the auction to his prejudice, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

The writ petition i.e., W.P. No.8191 of 2020 was contested by the respondents-State Bank of India (SBI) by filing common counter-affidavit. Stand of the respondents (SBI) was as under:

Respondents 1 and 2 have filed common counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit all the allegations made by the petitioner against the answering respondents have been denied. At the outset, an objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition, by contending that petitioner has an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Instead of availing the alternative remedy, petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8.1 On merit it is stated that respondent No.3 had availed loan of Rs.4,50,00,000.00 (Rupees four crores, fifty lakhs only) from respondent No.1. To avail the said loan, schedule–A and schedule–B properties were furnished as security. After availing the loan, respondent No.3 failed to repay the same, for which the loan account was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 14.10.2017. Thereafter, respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 17.10.2017. As the borrower as well as guarantors failed to repay the outstanding dues, possession notice dated 18.12.2017 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, was issued, which was also published in two news papers, as well as affixed on the schedule properties.

8.2 In continuation of the recovery proceedings, respondent No.2 issued notice under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules on 24.01.2020 addressed to respondent No.3 and the guarantors.

8.3 Despite receipt of such notice, respondent No.3 and the guarantors failed to repay the outstanding loan amount.

8.4 It is in such circumstances, that the schedule properties were put to action (sic ‘auction’), which was carried out on 16.03.2020.

8.5 In the said auction sale, petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of both the properties. He, therefore, remitted 10% of the earnest money deposit as well as 15% of the bid amount, totaling 25%, amounting to Rs.61,25,000.00 (Rupees sixty one lakhs, twenty five thousand only) for schedule–A property and Rs.31,25,000.00 (Rupees thirty one lakhs, twenty five thousand only) for schedule– B property.

8.6 Respondent No.2 issued sale confirmation letters dated 16.03.2021 to the petitioner, further calling upon him to remit the balance amount of Rs.1,83,75,000.00 (Rupees one crore, eighty three lakhs, seventy five thousand only) and Rs.93,75,000.00 (Rupees ninety three lakhs, seventy five thousand only) respectively within fifteen days i.e., by 31.03.2020.

8.7 Petitioners by various letters dated 28.03.2020, 28.04.2020 and 29.05.2020 sought for extension of time for payment of the balance 75% of the sale consideration. Considering the request, the time was extended till 15.06.2020.

8.8 Insofar allegation of the petitioner that there was no passage or pathway to the schedule properties, the same has been denied and disputed by the answering respondents. Reference has been made to Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Rules, as well as point No.7 of the terms and conditions of the e-auction application form dated 06.03.2020, as per which, the bidder (petitioner) ought to have exhibited due diligence regarding the schedule properties.

8.9 It is stated that failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the terms and conditions of the e-auction would lead to forfeiture of the amount paid by the petitioner.

An additional counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that certain information and documents were obtained by respondent No.1 from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 24.09.2021 and, therefore, the need for additional affidavit.

9.1 It is contended that respondent No.1 had lodged a complaint with CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, against respondent No.3, and its directors; investigation is going on into the complaint. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer accompanied by Bank officials had visited the site on 26.03.2021, recorded a panchanama of the properties. The properties visited were schedule–A and schedule–B properties.

9.2 From the panchanama, the said properties are having kutcha passage / road from the main road. Ex-sarpanch of the village Mr. V.Shankar Nayak stated that he had seen the passage right from his childhood.

9.3 On the above basis it is stated that the auctioned properties have passage facility and in fact the map relied upon by the petitioner also reflects the same. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is an after thought and the same has been filed only to avoid forfeiture of the payments made by the petitioner.

Petitioner had filed reply to the additional affidavit denying the averments made therein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the information furnished to the petitioner by the Tahsildar on 08.06.2020, which included the communication of the Mandal Surveyor, it is evident that there is no passage / path way to the schedule properties. Without such passage / pathway, the schedule properties have no utility. Respondents 1 and 2 had withheld this information in the e-auction notice dated 24.01.2020. Respondents 1 and 2 are under a legal obligation to make full disclosure of the schedule properties; failure to do so, would render the auction null and void.

11.1 In this connection, reliance has been placed on Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner also alleged collusion between respondents 3 and 2.

11.2 Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. Since the petitioner has been lured into the bidding process by misrepresentation of facts and by withholding relevant facts, the said bid should therefore be declared as null and void, and consequently the amount deposited by the petitioner should be released by respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner with applicable interest.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 while relying on the averments made in the counter affidavit, as well as in the additional counter affidavit, submits that the auction sale was carried out strictly in accordance with law; petitioner had participated in the auction voluntarily and with eyes wide open; it is inconceivable that a person parting about a crore of rupees on the auction sale date, would do so, without making preliminary enquiry about the status of the properties sought to the auction sold. According to him, present writ petition is nothing but an attempt by the petitioner to prevent forfeiture of the paid amount by respondents 1 and 2. He, therefore, seeks vacation of the interim order, as well as dismissal of the writ petition.

After hearing the matter and after referring to Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly ‘the SARFAESI Act’ hereinafter) this Court declined to accede to the prayers made by the petitioners. It was held as follows:

As per sub-section (1) of Section 17, any person including a borrower, who is aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or by his authorized officer, may make an application in the prescribed manner to the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal, within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken.

It is evident that the expression ‘any person’ as appearing in sub-section (1) would mean and include an aggrieved auction purchaser.

Therefore, petitioner as the auction purchaser, had the remedy of making the application before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

There is no allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice, or violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioner. Vires of any legislation is not under challenge. Petitioner has also not questioned the competence, or the jurisdiction of the authority who carried out the auction sale. In such circumstances, and having regard to the remedy provided under the statute, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, as the petitioner had failed to avail the alternative remedy provided under the statute.

Ordinarily, on this point itself, we would have relegated the petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. However, since the parties had pleaded and argued on merit and a substantial period has already gone-by since filing of the writ petition, we may advert to the challenge on merit as well.

Basic contention of the petitioner is that there is no passage or pathway leading to the schedule properties. The sale notice was issued on 24.01.2020, fixing the auction sale on 16.03.2020. The details of the schedule properties were mentioned in the sale notice. According to the petitioner himself, he had participated in the auction on 16.03.2020 and became the highest bidder. On that date itself, he had paid Rs.61,25,000.00 (Rupees sixty one lakhs, twenty five thousand only) for schedule–A property and in addition paid Rs.31,25,000.00 (Rupees thirty one lakhs, twenty five thousand only) towards schedule–B property.

It is inconceivable that a person participating in an auction sale and who purchased the auction properties instantaneously, would do so without verifying the status of the properties. That apart, from the additional counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 it is seen that as per the panchanama prepared by CBI dated 26.03.2021 on site visit, there is a kutcha passage / road to the schedule properties from the main road, which the ex-sarpanch of the village by the name of Shri V.Shankar Nayak, had seen since his childhood. If the petitioner disputes this, and relies upon the letter from the Mandal Surveyor, it would be a case of facts being disputed by the petitioner. It is well settled that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court would not enter into disputed questions of fact. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to accede to the prayers madeby the petitioner.

However, considering the fact that because of Covid-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdown, economic activities were greatly hampered. Court observed that it would be in the interest of justice to grant some more time to the petitioner to make the balance payments. Leaving the decision to the discretion of the respondents-SBI, Court took the view that it would be apposite for the SBI to make such an offer to the petitioner for the balance payment within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offer of SBI by the petitioner. Therefore, while declining the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:

Having said so, we are also cognizant of the fact that from March, 2020, for a considerable period, there was lock down in the country due to the unprecedented Covid–19 pandemic. Even from March, 2021 also, there was a second wave of the pandemic. The pandemic and the resultant lock downs have, to a great extent, adversely affected the economy. In such circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 may adopt a pragmatic, reasonable and a considerate approach and not insist on immediate forfeiture of the amount paid by the petitioner on the date of auction i.e., 16.3.2020. It would only be in the interest of justice if even at this belated stage, some more time is granted to the petitioner to make the balance payments. However, we leave this to the decision of respondents1 and 2.

It would be apposite if respondents 1 and 2 make such an offer to the petitioner to make the balance payment within a further period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the offer by the petitioner.

Therefore, while declining the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, we dispose of the writ petition in the above terms.

According to the petitioner, following the above order of this Court, he had drawn two demand drafts on ICICI Bank, Barkatpura Branch, Hyderabad, one for Rs.1,83,75,000-00 and the other for Rs.93,75,000-00, total amounting to Rs.2,77,50,000-00 in favour of the 1st respondent. Request was made to the respondents-SBI to accept the above demand drafts as payments towards balance sale consideration and thereafter to execute the Certificate of Sale in respect of Schedule-A property and Schedule-B property. Responding to the representation dated 15.12.2021 of the petitioner, respondent issued letter dated 23.12.2021 rejecting the request of the petitioner for accepting balance payment and for execution of Sale Certificate. Respondents-SBI took the stand that as per Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (briefly ‘the SARFAESI Rules’ hereinafter), authorities of the SBI were not empowered to accept the said amounts after the extended period.

Alleging that such decision of the respondents-SBI is contrary to the order of this Court dated 30.11.2021, besides being contemptuous too, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (SBI) have filed common counter-affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that W.P. No.8191 of 2020 was filed by the same petitioner before this Court contending that he was misled by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (SBI) about the schedule properties, particularly about the lack of approach road to the two plots of land. Thus, the petitioner was induced by suppression and misrepresentation to participate in the auction for sale of the schedule properties. In the circumstances petitioner filed W.P. No.8191 of 2020 to set aside the e-auction sale and to return 25% of the sale price deposited back to the petitioner. Though on 15.6.2020 this Court had passed an interim order directing SBI not to forfeit the amount already paid by the bidder, however by the final order dated 30.11.2021, Court held that the writ petition would not be entertained on the ground that the auction purchaser was having the statutory remedy of filing securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal.

9.1. According to the final order dated 30.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.8191 of 2020, respondents-SBI was first supposed to take a decision and thereafter to make an offer to the petitioner. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to have directly deposited the two demand drafts into the account of SBI.

9.2 Referring to Rule 9 (4) of the SARFAESI Rules, it is stated that the same is of mandatory nature as per which time to deposit 75% of the outstanding dues can be extended by both the parties but not beyond three months from the date of confirmation of sale. Therefore, SBI was justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner (auction purchaser) and declining to accept the two demand drafts.

9.3. Answering respondents have referred to the order dated 1.2.2022 passed by this Court in the present writ proceeding calling upon them not to forfeit 25% of the sale price paid by the petitioner and not to issue fresh sale notice in respect of the schedule properties, making a grievance that though they had lodged caveat, without serving a copy of the writ petition or without hearing the answering respondents, interim order was passed by this Court on 1.2.2022.

9.4. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have highlighted the contradictory stand taken by the petitioner in W.P. No.8191 of 2020 and in the present writ petition. Disputing the contentions raised by the petitioner made in the earlier writ petition regarding non-accessibility of the schedule properties, it is stated that in the present writ petition the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are completely contrary to the relief sought for in the earlier writ petition. Earlier, the prayer was made to quash the auction sale and thereafter to return 25% of the sale price deposited by the petitioner back to the petitioner. On the other hand, prayer made in the present writ petition relates to acceptance of the balance 75% of the sale price which is contradictory to the earlier reliefs sought for.

9.5. That apart, answering respondents have contended that the petitioner has filed Contempt Case No.165 of 2022 for alleged wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 30.11.2021. But in the present writ petition there is no mention of filing of the contempt case which amounts to suppression of material facts. Therefore, answering respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition.

The 4th respondent has also filed counter-affidavit wherein he has highlighted the contradictory stands taken by the writ petitioner in the two writ petitions. While acknowledging that 4th respondent was the borrower for whose default proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated by SBI, he also submits that he had approached State Bank of India (SBI) for One Time Settlement (OTS). On two occasions the offer for OTS was rejected by State Bank of India (SBI). Finally, 4th respondent made an offer for OTS on 6.8.2021 to settle the outstanding dues at Rs.4 Crores. In this regard, 4th respondent also paid Rs.60,00,000/- to the SBI, which was, however, not accepted by SBI. According to the 4th respondent, market value of Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties would be much higher now than the sale price at which the petitioner had purchased the two properties on auction sale. According to him, as per the valuation report dated 23.02.2021 market value of the two properties would be about Rs.7.06 crores. In this connection, 4th respondent has also faulted the action of SBI in not properly fixing the reserve price. Finally, he submits that the petitioner has got adequate and efficacious alternative remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Instead of availing such remedy, petitioner has directly approached this Court in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, on this ground also the writ petition ought to be dismissed.

Petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Petitioner has denied that he has suppressed any material fact. In the writ petition it is clearly mentioned about the intent of the petitioner to file contempt case. In any case, purport of the two proceedings i.e., contempt proceedings and writ proceedings are entirely different. The contempt petition was numbered after institution of the writ petition. Therefore, question of the petitioner not mentioning about the contempt case in the writ affidavit does not arise. Adverting to the order dated 30.11.2021, it is stated that by the said order ample opportunity was provided to the petitioner to make payments towards balance sale consideration and further directed the respondents to accept the same.

11.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the concluding paragraph of the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No.8191 of 2020 and submits therefrom that this Court had clearly expressed the view that SBI should adopt a pragmatic, reasonable and a considerate approach while dealing with the case of the petitioner. Though not stated in so many words, it is evident that this Court had acknowledged that there was delay in payment of the balance 75% of the sale price because of the Covid-19 situation. Therefore, liberty was granted to the SBI to provide some more time to the petitioner to make the balance payment. However, SBI has acted contrary to the letter and spirit of the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2021 by refusing to accept the two demand drafts submitted by the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-SBI submitted that the request of the petitioner for relaxation of the time limit for payment of the balance 75% of the sale price cannot be accepted by the SBI because of the mandatory nature of Rule 9 (4) of the SARFAESI Rules. Though various High Courts, including this High Court, had granted more time beyond the stipulated period for making deposit of the balance 75% of the sale price because of the pandemic and lockdown, in the present case the conduct of the petitioner would disentitle him from such a concession. He, therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

We have already noted the fact that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. No.8191 of 2020. The prayer made in the said writ petition was to set aside and quash the e-auction sale notice dated 24.01.2020 as well as the consequential auction held on 16.3.2020. Related prayer made was for a direction to the SBI to return the amount (25% of the sale price) paid by the petitioner following the auction held on 16.3.2020. The above prayer was made on the backdrop of the petitioner’s assertion that when he had visited Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties after the lockdown was relaxed, he found that there was no approach road to either of the two properties. In other words the schedule properties did not have ingress and egress, rendering the properties unviable. In the above context, petitioner had contended that description of the schedule properties in the e-auction notice was misleading. That apart, such basic information that there was no passage or pathway to the schedule properties was withheld from the bidders who had participated in the auction including the petitioner. The local Tahsildar had informed the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Mandal Surveyor that there was no path to the schedule properties. Therefore, the petitioner alleged that there was misrepresentation on the part of SBI whereby they had induced the petitioner to participate in the auction to his prejudice.

In the order dated 30.11.2021, this Court rejected such contention of the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, it was pointed out that under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act petitioner had an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy which the petitioner did not avail. Secondly, this Court observed that it is inconceivable that a person participating in an auction sale would do so without verifying the status of the properties. This Court further referred to the panchanama prepared by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) dated 26.03.2021 as per which there is kutcha passage /road to the schedule properties from the main road. The ex-Sarpanch of the village has stated that since his childhood he had seen that there was a kutcha passage/road from the main road to the schedule properties. This Court opined that if the petitioner disputed such fact and relied upon the letter of the Mandal Surveyor, it would be a case of facts being disputed by the petitioner, which may not be gone into in a writ proceeding. Therefore, on both these two counts, this Court did not accept the prayer of the petitioner.

However, having regard to the Covid-19 situation then prevalent in the country, this Court took the view that it would be apposite for the SBI to make an offer to the petitioner to make the balance payment within a further period of 90 days. Instead of waiting for the SBI to make such an offer to the petitioner for payment of the balance 75% of the sale price within a period of 90 days, petitioner on his own deposited two bank drafts with SBI. Request was made to the SBI authorities for accepting the demand drafts. However, that was rejected by the SBI.

We are not inclined to grant further indulgence to the petitioner for two reasons. Firstly, there is complete contradiction in the prayers made by the petitioner in the two writ petitions, both filed by him. In the first writ petition, the prayer was made to set aside the auction sale on the ground that the petitioner was misinformed by SBI about the access to the two schedule properties. Contending that there was no approach road to the schedule properties from the main road, consequential prayer was made for quashing of the auction sale and return of 25% of the sale price deposited by the petitioner back to him. On the other hand, prayer made in this writ petition is for a direction to the SBI to accept the balance 75% of the sale price. If the petitioner had such serious objection to the auction sale that he wanted quashing of the same and return of 25% of the sale price, it is not understandable as to how the same petitioner can insist on SBI to accept the entire sale price of the auction sale, which he wanted to be set aside at the first phase. While in the first writ petition, petitioner sought refund of the 25% deposit, in the second writ petition petitioner seeks a direction to the SBI to accept 75% of the balance sale price. If the relief sought for in the present writ petition is accepted, then it becomes evident that the relief sought for by the petitioner in the first writ petition was premised on wrong factual foundation, which the petitioner knew. Therefore, a view can be taken that the first writ petition was nothing but an attempt to somehow prevent forfeiture of 25% of the sale price and to get back the same. Viewed in the above context, it is crystal clear that petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands when he had filed the first writ petition.

Second reason for declining to entertain the writ petition is that in the concluding paragraph of the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in W.P. No.8191 of 2020, discretion was given to the SBI as to whether it would accept deposit of 75% of the sale price at a belated stage. It was left open to the discretion of SBI to make such an offer to the petitioner but no such offer came to be made by SBI. Rather pre-empting such an offer, petitioner deposited two demand drafts for the balance 75% of the sale price and sought to compel the SBI to accept the two demand drafts as a fait accompli.

Thus, on a conjoint analysis of the reasons given above, we are of the unhesitant view that no mandamus can be issued to the SBI to accept the demand drafts of the petitioner.

Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.