KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.

1. W.P.No.44694 of 2017 is filed by the borrower, to declare the e-auction sale conducted on 17.11.2017, by the 1st respondent bank, confirming the same in favour of the 2nd respondent and handing over the possession of the property upon payment of 25% of the bid amount, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2002 (for short ‘Rules’), made there under.

2. W.P.No.44967 of 2017 is filed by the guarantor, to declare the action of the 1st respondent bank in selling away the properties, without giving any notice and without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. WP No.44964 of 2017: Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner firm obtained loan from the 1st respondent bank in the year 2012 to run the business of poultry farm with a capacity of 3.00 lakh eggs per day; it has been repaying the installments regularly without fail up to February, 2014; due to hailstorm on 04.03.2014, the unit was severely damaged and almost all the birds died; additional working capital was rejected and the bank advised the petitioner to restart the unit with its own funds; the 1st respondent bank did not follow RBI guidelines in restructuring the loan; it did not give any moratorium as stipulated in the guidelines; demand notice dated 04.05.2016 was issued intimating that the loan was classified as NPA on 13.01.2016 and called upon the petitioner to pay the entire amount; petitioner expressed its inability to repay the entire amount; the petitioner requested for OTS scheme on 08.07.2016 for an amount of Rs.15.65 crores; on 09.02.2017, the 1st respondent bank accorded OTS for an amount of Rs.22.10 crores after lapse of seven months, which resulted in accumulation of sum of Rs.2.40 crores towards interest; as the petitioner was unable to honour the terms in OTS, petitioner vide letter dated 07.03.2017 requested the 1st respondent bank to grant eight weeks time to settle the issue; the 1st respondent bank, instead of considering the request, has withdrawn OTS vide letter dated 10.04.2017; another demand notice dated 24.05.2017 was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.27,85,63,659/- plus interest within 60 days; petitioner again reiterated the request for OTS, but the 1st respondent bank did not respond; 1st respondent bank has issued possession notice on 22.08.2017 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and taken possession of the properties of the petitioner; subsequently, e-auction sale notice dated 12.10.2017 was issued fixing the date of auction as 17.11.2017; thereafter, petitioner addressed a letter dated 15.11.2017 to the 1st respondent bank requesting to stall the auction with a request that he will pay the OTS amount on its revival on or before 25.03.2018; petitioner received the letter dated 20.11.2017 stating that its request for OTS was rejected and that the auction was conducted on 17.11.2017; in the auction, the property was knocked down for a meager sum of Rs.9.75 crores and that only a single bidder 4th respondent had participated; the said person is none other than the MLA, who happens to have close association with one of officials of the bank; even as per the basic value register, the property is worth more than Rs.35.00 crores; structures and plant and machinery worth Rs.14.00 crores were not mentioned in the sale notice; the 2nd respondent/4th respondent did not pay the balance amount as stipulated in the sale notice; at the time of inspection, the 1st respondent bank has certified constructed area as 2.75 lakh sq. ft. over the property; even in the possession notice, there is no mention of built up structures, which are covered in an area of Ac.15.00 guntas; there is no mention about the machine