C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the e-auction- cum-sale notice, dated 28.07.2016, whereby the auction of flat No.6401 of Sri Vishnu Grandhi Vista Residential Complex, Block No.3, situated at Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was proposed to be held, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. We have heard Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K. Sai Rama Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Mr. G Bhadraiah, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. In his affidavit, the petitioner has averred that he holds agreement of sale dated 16.06.2016, in respect of the aforementioned flat, that he had paid Rs.20,00,000/- to respondent No.2, that to his shock and surprise, he came to know that in the e-auction-cum-sale notice dt.28.07.2016 issued by respondent No.1 bank, flat No.6401 has been included in lot No.1 in the said notification and that as per the said notification the last date for receiving bids was 29.08.2016 and the date of auction was 31.08.2016. The petitioner further averred that on seeing the said notification he has approached respondent No.1 expressing his willingness to pay the due amount with a request to release the flat from the auction proceedings. He has also averred that at the time of entering into agreement of sale, he is not aware of the securitization proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 bank and that as the encumbrance certificate obtained by him for the period 2007 to 2016 did not contain any entry of encumbrance, he bona fide believed that the flat was free from encumbrance. The petitioner referred to clause 5 of the agreement wherein it is stipulated that the petitioner has to make payment of Rs.25,81,000/- to respondent No.1 bank and stated that he was not informed that the flat was under mortgage of respondent No.1. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that the information gathered by him subsequently revealed that respondent No.2 approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing S.A. No.253 of 2012 and without the permission of respondent No.1 it has entered into agreements of sale in respect of various flats, including Flat No.6401, and that the said respondent has failed to secure an order of stay of e-auction notice dt.28.07.2016. While pleading that he has entered into an agreement of sale bona fide with respondent No.2, he has averred that the auction would cause irreparable injury to him. The petitioner has further averred that excluding Flat No.6401 from the auction would not cause any loss to respondent No.1 bank as he has agreed to pay more than the amount offered by the prospective purchaser in the e-auction notice.

4. On 15.09.2016 this Court while ordering notice in the writ petition granted stay of auction of the flat on condition of the petitioner paying to respondent No.1 not less than Rs.25,81,000/- before the schedule date and time of the auction, failing which, respondent No.1 shall be free to proceed with the auction.

5. One Mr. G. Vikram Kumar filed W.P.M.P. No.47468 of 2016 seeking his impleadment. It is stated in his affidavit that he has participated in the auction held on 31.08.2016 and was declared as successful bidder vide proceedings dt.31.08.2016 issued by the Authorized Officer of respondent No.1 duly acknowledging a sum of Rs.6,45,250/- representing 25% of the bid amount of Rs.25,81,000/-, and that in pursuance of the interim order of this Court, respondent No.1 issued proceedings dt.20.09.2016 informing him that this Court has stayed the auction. He has further stated that respondent No.1 has issued another proceedings of even date wherein it has informed that the writ petitioner has complied with the conditional order by depositing a sum of Rs.25,81,000/- by way of demand draft dt.14.09.2016 apart from paying Rs.25,000/- over and above the highest bid amount of Rs.25,81,000/-. The implead party applicant also alleged collusion between th