The court emphasized the importance of genuine intention in agreements and the prohibition against dealing with mortgaged property, while also highlighting the fair and transparent conduct of auctions.

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-bank.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs –

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the auction sale of the mortgaged property of the petitioner held on 11.10.2017 by the respondent bank under the aegis of Respondent no. 4 for a sum of Rs. 56,75,000/- (Rupees fifty six lakhs seventy five thousand only) and consequential sale certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 5, an ex-employee of the respondent bank, who had processed the loan of the petitioner in the first place, as the same was conducted in a collusive and clandestine manner, by grossly undervaluing the mortgaged property, which as per the valuation report of the respondent bank itself was assessed at Rs. 64,98,160.00 (Rupees sixty four lakhs ninety eight thousand one hundred sixty only) in January, 2014.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside order dated 07.10.2017 passed in R.P. Case No. 553/2016 by the Recovery Officer, (Respondent No. 4) whereby and whereunder the petitioner’s objection with regard to the undervaluation of the mortgaged property has been rejected on the ground of the objection being belated.

(iii) For an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding respondent no. 4 to consider afresh the objections with regard to undervaluation of the mortgaged property and short pricing of the reserve price for the purposes of auction.

(iv) For an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to conduct de novo auction of the mortgaged property in a fair and transparent manner after revising the reserve price of the mortgaged property in terms of its current valuation, in order to enable genuine buyers to participate in the same so that the optimum value of the mortgaged property could be realized.

(v) For an appropriate ad-interim writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining the respondent authorities from dispossessing the petitioner from the mortgaged property and handing over the possession of the same to respondent no. 5 and for maintaining status quo during the pendency of the writ application.

(vi) Alternatively, if respondent no. 5 has already been put in possession of the mortgaged property, then an appropriate ad-interim writ, order or directions for restoring status quo ante and putting the petitioner back in possession of the mortgaged property during the pendency of the writ application.

(vii) For an appropriate ad-interim writ, order or direction restraining the respondent authorities from taking any other coercive steps against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ application.

(viii) For any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has advanced detailed submissions to assail the action of the respondent-bank in having auctioned the petitioner’s mortgaged property at a value far below the price which could easily have been fetched, through collusive means in favour of the respondent no. 5 at a price of Rs. 56,75,000/- only. It is stated that in the e-auction, the only participants were the respondent no. 5, an ex-employee of the respondent-Bank, and his daughter-in-law (respondent no. 6). It is submitted that under-valuation of the property is manifest from a bare perusal of the two valuation reports dated 09.01.2014 and 12.07.2017 by which the property has been valued by the bank’s valuer at Rs. 64,98,160/- and Rs. 66,39,000/- respectively. Considerable stress has been laid on an agreement dated 12.09.2017 (Annexure-11) entered into between the petitioner and one Dharmnath Singh for