Sathish Ninan, J.—In Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India ([2004] 4 SCC 311), the constitutional validity of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”) was upheld by the Apex Court. As per Act 1 of 2013, Section 13(5A) was incorporated into the Act with effect from 15.01.2013, permitting the secured creditor to bid for the secured assets. The vires of Section 13(5A) is under challenge in this writ proceedings on the ground that it is violative of Articles 300A and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Shri P.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri K.K. Chandran Pillai, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

3. The question to be considered is as to whether the power given to the secured creditor under Section 13(5A) of the Act is arbitrary, irrational and without any nexus to the object.

4. Section 13(5A) of the Act is as under:

“135A. Where the sale of an immovable property, for which a reserve price has been specified, has been postponed for want of a bid of an amount not less than such reserve price, it shall be lawful for any officer of the secured creditor, i