V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Challenging an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissing an application for setting aside a sale conducted by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent/Bank.

3. The 2nd respondent is the auction purchaser. He was made a party to the appeal S.A.No.996 of 2017 filed by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. It is stated that despite service of notice, he did not appear before the Tribunal.

4. Even before this Court, notice was ordered to the 2nd respondent/auction purchaser. Though the Court notice returned unserved with an endorsement Not claimed returned to sender, the personal notice sent by the counsel for the petitioner by speed post, appears to have been delivered, as seen from the tracking system. Therefore, we have taken up the writ petition for hearing. But he has not chosen to enter appearance.

5. The petitioners husband availed facilities from the 1st respondent/Bank and the account became a non-performing asset. The petitioner guaranteed the repayment of the loan and also offered her house property as security.

6. After the account became a non-performing asset, the Bank issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 16-9-2014. It was followed by a possession notice dated 18-5-2015.

7. A notice under Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, dated 18-9-2015, was issued followed by an E-Auction notice dated 26-9-2015. The E-Auction notice was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.37565 of 2015. While ordering notice, this Court directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount due to the Bank with interest and directed the Bank not to confirm the sale if such payment was made. But the payment was not made and the writ petition was dismissed on 16-6-2016 for non-prosecution.

8. As a consequence, the Bank confirmed the auction, received the balance of sale consideration and issued a Sale Certificate dated 29-01-2016. The Bank also approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by way of an application under Section 14 in Crl.M.P.No.836 of 2015 and took possession.

9. Challenging the sale certificate issued on 29-01-2016, the petitioner filed an appeal in S.A.No.46 of 2016 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. It was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal-II and renumbered as S.A.996 of 2017.

10. After hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that there was no infringement of the Statutory Rules, in the manner of conduct of the auction. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

11. The short ground on which the petitioner challenges the Sale Certificate dated 29-01-2016 and the order of the Tribunal confirming the sale is that there has been a gross violation of Rule 9(3) and 9 (4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

12. Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, as it stood as in October, 2015, the date of conduct of auction sale in this case, before its amendment in the year 2016, read as follows:

9. Time of sale, issues of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.

(1) No sale of immovable property under these rules shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) or notice of sale has been served to the borrower.

(2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor:

Provided that no sale under this rule shall be c