B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.

The writ petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned E-auction sale dated 14.03.2016, covered by E-auction sale notice dated 10.02.2016, that was published in Eenadu Telugu Daily News Paper dated 13.02.2016, claiming the same even in pursuance of unserved demand and possession notices respectively dated 20.05.2015 and 05.10.2015 as null and vold; on the grounds that the said E-auction sale was held contrary to the mandate of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act). The writ petition is maintained against the State Bank of India, the secured creditor of Kurnool Branch, represented by its Authorized Officer as sole respondent originally and later as per orders in W.P.M.P No. 15879 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016, the auction purchaser is impleaded as 2nd respondent.

2-a. It is the factual matrix in nutshell that, the writ petitioner having availed house loan of Rs. 16,88,000/- on 01.10.2008, for purchase of built up area of 1250 Sq.ft, with common area along with undivisible 1/15th share equal to 26 Sq.yards out of 390 Sq.yards site all consisting of Flat No. 401, IV Floor, V.C Homes, Survey No. 151.A situated in Sankhal Bagh, N.R Peta, Kurnool; paid installments regularly upto the year, 2011 and later committed default. For the defaults committed, it is her version that her husband left his job and was doing business all and sundry and wherein he incurred debts and he left the city without disclosing whereabouts and some of the creditor Banks also filed criminal cases against them and after he was traced in the year, 2014 arrested in a criminal case of 2011 and later was released on bail. According to her, taking advantage of the things, the so called auction petitioner (2nd respondent), Smt. V. Prameela Reddy and one V.S Reddy having an eye over her property supra colluded with the Bank and filed a suit with false claim for specific performance in O.S No. 79 of 2011, on the file of Principal District Judge, Kurnool. Her further version is that without any service of alleged demand notice dated 30.01.2011 under Section 13(2) and of possession notice dated 05.01.2012 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, to proceed further including to take possession and without following the due procedure laid down under the Act; and even without service of alleged another demand notice dated 20.05.2015, issued the purported notice dated 05.01.2015

2-b. According to her, the notice dated 05.01.2016 though received there is no service of the possession notice and there is no even affixture of possession notice supra at any conspicuous part of the property which are mandatorily contemplated by Act and the Rules made there under.

2-c. It is the contention therefrom that though the Bank was to obtain valuation certificate from any approved valuer and fix reserve price and thereafter issue sale notice by following the procedure contemplated by the provisions supra including by stating about possession and total description of the property to be sold, date of sale with reserve price etc. contents, which are material to redeem the property if any under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short Rules, 2002) and without even further publication under Rule 9(1) and without even 30 days time gap from date of publication to the date of sale, viz., from 13.02.2016 to 14.03.2016, which is a statutory mandate and also by fixing reserve price of 17,12,000/- though the property is worth more than Rs. 40 lakhs. It is further averred that the Bank is aware of the exparte decree in the suit proceedings in O.S No. 79 of 2011 and of petition filed to set aside the exparte decree with delay condonation including to receive written statement in the suit that are pending and by charging exorbitant rate of interest and other sums in bringing the property to auction sale by violation of the