ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Challenging the Sale Notice, dated 18.11.2021, published in Hindu English Newspaper on 21.11.2021 without taking recourse to Rule 8 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, [“Rules 2002”], the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. The facts, which lead to filing of the present petition, are as under :

(i) The second Petitioner herein is the Managing Director of the 1st Petitioner Company. The Respondent Bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- and also working capital limit upto Rs.3,00,00,000/- on 07.12.2015 under two loan accounts numbers, which are 0644766000002 and 0644261000543. The loan was to be repaid within 28 quarterly instalments starting from April 2017. The immovable properties of the 1st Petitioner Company, namely, plant and machinery; agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents situated near JOCIL Company, abutting to Guntur to Narsaraopet State Highway and also a residential house standing in the name of the 2nd Petitioner.

(ii) As the Petitioners committed default in payment of loan amount, their accounts were declared as “Non Performing Assets” on 17.10.2017. Thereafter, a notice under Section 13 (2) came to be issued on 31.10.2017 under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, [“SARFAESI Act”], in which the total debt was shown as Rs.6,10,15,997.75 paise.

(iii) The Bank published the Sale Notice on 12.09.2018 for sale of the mortgaged properties. Since, the Sale Notice came to be issued without following the provisions of law; S.A. No. 362 of 2018 came to be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam on 27.09.2018. After hearing both sides, the Sale Notice was set-aside by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, on 21.12.2021. Prior to setting aside the Sale Notice by the Tribunal, the Respondent Bank published the impugned Sale Notice, dated 18.11.2021, in Hindu English Newspaper on 21.11.2021, without awaiting the result in S.A. No. 362 of 2018. This notice is now sought to be challenged on various grounds, namely, that in view of the order passed by the Tribunal, the entire process has to be commenced afresh including a notice under Section 13(2).

(iv) It is further urged that, once an order is passed by the Tribunal, the principle of doctrine of merger steps in and the consequential steps taken by the Respondent Bank till 21.12.2021 have to be declared as null and void. In other words, the argument of Sri. Ashok, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. T. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, would be that entire process has to be started afresh by following the procedure contemplated under Section 13(4) read with Rule 8 of the Rules.

3. On the other hand, Sri. Bachina Hanumantha Rao, Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank, opposed the same. He would submit that the Writ Petition is not maintainable since the successful bidders are not made parties. He further submits that already the plant and machinery are sold and, as such, the proper remedy for the Petitioners would have been to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, once again.

4. (i) The averments in the Counter would show that, pursuant to the default committed, a notice under Section 13(2) was issued and after a lapse of sixty days from the date of service of notice, the Respondent Bank took possession of the secured asset and served Possession Notice on 24.10.2018 as required under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which was acknowledged by the Petitioners. Since, there was no response from the Petitioners with regard to payment of any amount; Possession Notice was issued on 24.10.2018 by publishing the same in English vernacular language Newspapers on 31.10.2018 and also affixing the same at a conspicuous place as required under Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of Rules 2002. It is further stated that, a Notice under Rule 8 (6