Sanjay Kumar, J.

Order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in S.A. No. 82 of 2008 was confirmed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 262 of 2013/43. Both the orders are subjected to challenge presently.

2. The State Bank of Hyderabad, Chirala Road, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District, initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Sarfaesi Act'), in relation to the secured asset offered by Bhavanasi Subba Rao, the fourth respondent, for the loan facilities availed by him. After following the due procedure, the bank issued auction notice dated 15.10.2004, published in the newspaper on 17.10.2004, proposing to hold the auction sale on 15.11.2004. However, this sale did not materialize. The bank thereupon issued notice dated 02.07.2005, published in the newspaper on 04.07.2005, proposing to hold the auction on 15.07.2005. In the auction held on 15.07.2005, K. Nageswara Rao and his son, K.V. Pulla Rao, the writ petitioners, were declared the highest bidders. A sale certificate was issued to them on 22.07.2005. On 25.08.2005, Bhavanasi Subba Rao filed SA IR No.169 of 2005 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which came to be numbered as S.A.No.82 of 2008 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. By order dated 11.06.2009, the Tribunal allowed the application, taking into consideration the fact that 30 days notice had not been given prior to conduct of the auction sale on 15.07.2005. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that Bhavanasi Subba Rao forwarded photocopies of demand drafts available with him to the bank in proof of his sincere efforts to redeem the secured asset. The Tribunal therefore granted 10 days time to Bhavanasi Subba Rao to deposit the money due to the bank and in the event he did so, the bank was directed to receive the same and restore possession of the secured asset to him.

3. Aggrieved thereby, K. Nageswara Rao and K.V. Pulla Rao, the auction purchasers, filed Appeal No. 262 of 2013/43 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. By order dated 17.04.2017, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, but granted liberty to the appellants to invoke appropriate remedies in accordance with law for the loss and harassment they were subjected to by the bank as they had paid the entire sale consideration and had secured a registered sale certificate as long back as on 22.07.2005. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, the auction purchasers are before this Court.

4. Bhavanasi Subba Rao filed a counter justifying the orders under challenge. As regards the factual aspects, he stated that the bank initially published auction notice dated 07.11.2003 proposing to conduct the auction sale on 21.02.2004. However, the same did not materialize and was postponed to 15.11.2004. Again, on the said day, the sale was dropped. A fresh publication was made on 04.07.2005 fixing the date of the sale as 15.07.2005. The sale was conducted on that day and the writ petitioners were declared the highest bidders. Consequently, sale certificate dated 22.07.2005 was issued to them. He contended that there was a clear violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 2002'), as the sale was held before expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the notice. He pointed out that even before confirmation of the sale, he had obtained four demand drafts dated 08.07.2005 for a sum of Rs. 4,54,660/- to satisfy the mortgage debt of the bank and that attested copies of these drafts were sent to the bank. In spite of the same, the sale was confirmed on 22.07.2005 and the sale certificate was issued on the very same date. He pointed out that under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, his right to redeem the secured asset stood protected up