IMPORTANT POINT
When an administrative authority / quasi-judicial authority passes an order, there should be reasons which are heartbeat of any decision.

S. Manikumar, J.—On 27.03.2018, we passed the following order:—

“Material on record discloses that Radaan Textiles, a partnership firm, has borrowed loan for a sum of Rs.245 lakhs, under various heads:—

Nature	Existing	Proposed
Fund based CC (H)	150.00	225.00
Fund based ceiling	150.00	225.00
Non fund based	Nil	Nil
Term loan	20.00	20.00
Limit of credit exposure  on account of all derivative products	Nil	Nil

2. Land and building, comprised in R.S.No.96/2, to an extent of 3.69 acres, Nambiyur village, Erode District, has been offered as collateral security. Title deeds have been deposited, under a Deed of Memorandum, dated 20/4/2011, registered as Document No.1577 of 2011, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Nambiyur, Erode District. Petitioner has defaulted. Hence Punjab National Bank, Coimbatore, respondent No.3, has declared the loan as Non-performing Asset, and issued demand notice, dated 16/4/2015,under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, calling upon the borrower and the guarantor, to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,22,295/-, as on 31/3/2015, with subsequent interest. Thereafter, possession notice, dated 10/8/2015, has been issued, under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Apart from the loan of Rs.245 lakhs, M/s. Radaan Textiles, Tirupur, has two other loan accounts, with Punjab National Bank, Coimbatore, under the names Radaan Garments and Varun Fabs. Those two accounts were also declared as Non-Performing Asset. One Time Settlement was offered by the Bank as hereunder:-

S.  No.	Name of the Concern	OTS Amount (Rs. in crores)
1.	Radaan Garments	3.10
2.	Radaan Textiles	2.80
3.	Varun Fabs	2.50
	Total Settlement Amount	8.40

3. In respect of Radaan Garment’s account, a sum of Rs.3.10 crores has been paid. Punjab National Bank/respondent No.3 has closed Radaan Garment’s account. Varun Fabs, an other account holder, could not settle OTS in time.

4. Punjab National Bank, respondent No.3, has issued the first e-auction sale notice, dated 2/12/2016, fixing the auction, on 5/1/2017, for recovery of Rs.3,83,23,310, as on 31/10/2016. Upset price has been fixed at 2,22,00,000/-. Auction failed. Therefore, second e-auction notice, dated 31/1/2017, has been issued, to recover a sum of Rs.3,87,27,989/-, as on 3/12/2006. Upset price has been fixed as Rs.1,78,00,000/-. This e-auction, fixed on 10/3/2017 has also failed. Third e-auction notice, dated 21/3/2017 has been issued, to recover a sum of Rs. 3,98,26,350/-, as on 28/2/2017. Upset price has been fixed as Rs.1,51,00,000.

5. Being aggrieved by the e-auction sale notice, dated 21/3/2017, petitioner has filed SARFAESI Application No.129 of 2017, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. I.A.No.812 of 2017 has been filed for stay. Though the Tribunal granted an interim order, dated 13/4/2017, against the Bank, not to confirm the sale, till 16/8/2017, subject to the condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.1 crore, directly to the Bank, in four equated instalments, petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.25 lakhs only.

6. An other sale notice, dated 12/5/2017, has been issued by the third respondent Bank, fixing the sale, on 29/5/2017. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.1059 of 2017, for stay of all further proceedings, in pursuance of the sale notice, dated 12/5/2017. Bank has issued another auction notice, dated 13/10/2017, fixing the auction, on 22/11/2017, in respect of two properties. Upset price for item No.1 of the property has been fixed at Rs.1,40,00,000/-. Said property has been knocked down for Rs.1,42,00,000/-. Challenging the above said sale, dated 22/11/2017, S.A.No.383 of 2017 has been filed, in which notice has been ordered. Third respondent bank has entered appearance, on 4/1/2018 and yet to file counter affidavit.

7. When the matter stood