The main legal point established in the judgment is that the auction notice for the sale of a property must accurately mention the actual extent of the property, as required by the Security Interest(Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and the authorized officer has a duty to take all precautions before conducting the sale.

JUDGMENT

A.V.SESHA SAI, J. - Heard Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Suryam and Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 to 4, apart from perusing the material available on record.

2. For realization of the debt amount from one M/s.V.R.Enterprises, the respondents-bank authorities initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short The Act") and conducted public auction for the subject land, pursuant to the Intended Sale Notice, dtd. 27/8/2010, issued under Rules 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 framed under the Act. The auction for the subject property was conducted on 8/10/2010, in which the petitioner herein emerged as highest bidder and a sale certificate was also issued by the respondents-bank authorities on 11/11/2010 after the payment of the entire bid amount of Rs.5, 41, 200.00 by the petitioner.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only an extent of 75 square yards is available out of the total extent of 240 square yards on ground and the rest of the extent is covered by a road and the respondents-bank authorities did not disclose the said reality in their auction notice. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents-bank authorities also obtained a valuation certificate from their approved valuer prior to auction of the subject property and, according to the said valuation certificate, the available site is only 75 square yards and the rest of the extent of 165.00 square yards is covered by a road. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said information was not mentioned in the auction Sale Notice issued by the respondents-bank authorities.

4. The information available before this Court discloses that after correspondence with the respondentsbank authorities, eventually, a legal notice came to be issued by the Petitioner in the month of November, 2018 and, thereafter, Writ Petition No.8232 of 2019 was filed before this Court. In the said Writ Petition, initially, on 2/7/2019, an interim order was granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, directing Respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein to consider the petitioner"s representations, dtd. 21/7/2023 and 13/3/2018, and also the legal notice dtd. 31/10/2018, and take appropriate decision and communicate the same. Eventually, the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of vide order, dtd. 19/11/2019. Paragraphs Nos.3 and 4 of the said order read as follows:-

3. In order to put a quietus for the entire issue, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, leaving it open for the petitioner herein to submit appropriate representation/application to the respondents' bank within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, enclosing all the relevant information and if any such representation/application is made within the time stipulated above, the same be considered and appropriate orders be passed within a period of three(3) weeks, thereafter as per law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents-bank authorities, by way of impugned intimation, dtd. 19/12/2019, declined to consider the request of the petitioner. In the above background, the present Writ Petition came to be filed by the petitioner.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-bank, denying the allegations in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides being opposed to the very spirit and object o