Sanjay Kumar, J.

The petitioner assails the action of the IDBI Bank (hereinafter, the bank) in cancelling the offer of a One Time Settlement by its letter dated 23.06.2016 and in issuing sale notice dated 22.05.2017, followed by publication of the e-auction sale dated 07.06.2017, proposing to sell the petitioners mortgaged properties on 28.06.2017. He also seeks a consequential direction to the bank to grant him reasonable time for payment of the balance amount under the One Time Settlement as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

2. By order dated 27.06.2017, this Court took note of the fact that the auction sale of the petitioners properties was scheduled to be held on the next day and permitted the bank to proceed with the said sale but in the event it materialised, the bank was directed to receive only 25% of the bid amount and was restrained from confirming the sale or taking any further action until the next hearing. This order was not extended thereafter. In any event, we are informed that the sale did not materialize on 28.06.2017 for want of bidders.

3. In his writ affidavit, the petitioner stated as follows: He was the proprietor of M/s. Jayalakshmi Traders, a rice mill at Bheemavaram in West Godavari District. He borrowed a sum of Rs.5.00 crore from the bank in the year 2009 towards working capital for this rice mill. He repaid a sum of Rs.3.30 crore to the bank by 19.03.2014. However, as he sustained loss in the running of the mill due to adverse market conditions and other reasons, he requested the bank for a One Time Settlement in the year 2014. The bank accepted his plea vide letter dated 01.03.2016 requiring him to pay Rs.4.32 crore of which, Rs.48.00 lakh was to be paid upfront and the remaining amount of Rs.3.84 crore was to be paid by March, 2016 in single or multiple tranches. He paid a sum of Rs.1.12 crore immediately, which was admitted by the bank, and thereafter, he paid Rs.10.00 lakh on 14.06.2016. According to him, this payment was ignored by the bank. His grievance is that reasonable time was not granted to him for payment of the amount due under the One Time Settlement. He addressed letter dated 11.05.2016 to the bank requesting extension of time for payment of the balance but, without considering the same, the bank replied vide letter dated 25.05.2016 threatening to cancel the One Time Settlement if he did not pay the full amount by the end of May, 2016. Thereafter, by letter dated 23.06.2016, the bank informed him that the One Time Settlement offer stood cancelled. He asserted that no show-cause notice was issued to him prior thereto and without granting him reasonable time, as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, which mandate that a years time should be given for clearing the amounts due under a One Time Settlement, the bank cancelled the offer. He made a representation to the bank on 25.04.2017 seeking six months time to pay the balance amount due under the One Time Settlement, but the bank advised him under letter dated 19.05.2017 to apply for a fresh One Time Settlement. Thereafter, the bank straightaway issued a sale notice on 22.05.2017 to him proposing to put his mortgaged properties to sale under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, the SARFAESI Act), followed by publication of the e-auction sale notice dated 07.06.2017.

4. His further grievance is that no fresh demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to him prior to the sale notice dated 22.05.2017 and thereafter, the bank published the auction notice dated 07.06.2017. As the demand notice issued earlier by the bank was in the year 2014 before the sanction of the One Time Settlement, the petitioner asserted that the bank necessarily had to issue a fresh demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, as the earlier notice was deemed to have lapsed due to the intervention of the One