Dipankar Datta, J.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioners seek orders on the Central Bank of India (the first respondent) and four of its officers, who are the other respondents, to discharge their obligation in terms of the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the SARFAESI Act) of handing over possession of a secured asset to the petitioners which had been put up for sale by auction and has since been purchased by them.

2. The basic facts giving rise to the writ petition are not in dispute. The third respondent, being the authorised officer of the first respondent, had published an auction notice dated April 12, 2012 in exercise of power conferred by Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 (hereafter the 2002 Rules) putting up various properties (secured assets) for sale. Such properties, inter alia, included a 3-storied residential cum commercial building known as Medilife, located in Ward No. 6 of Siliguri Municipal Corporation, P.O. and P.S. Siliguri, District Darjeeling together with such area of vacant land as delineated in the notice. The petitioners were the successful bidders and in due course of time the requisite amount having been made over to the third respondent, sale certificate in the statutory form (Appendix V) read with Rule 9(6) of the 2002 Rules was issued. The material portion of the sale certificate reads as follows:

"Whereas

The undersigned being the authorised Officer of the Central Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, Kolkata under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest' 2002 and in the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 read with rule 12 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 sold on behalf of the Central Bank of India, Siliguri Branch in favour of Sri Mahendra Mahato & Ms. Sarita Agarwal the immovable property shown in the schedule below secured in favour of the Central Bank of India, Siliguri Branch in Account Medilife towards the Cent Trade facility offered by Central Bank of India, Siliguri Branch to Mr. Sujit Kumar Singhania. The undersigned acknowledge the receipt of the sale price of L 26.75 lacs (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Seventy Five Thousand) only in full & handed over the delivery and possession of the schedule property. This property has been sold as is Where is Basis & as is What is Basis as Mentioned in "Times of India [English]" & "Aajkal [Bengali]" on 12.04.2012 The sale of the scheduled property was made free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor listed below on deposit of the money demanded by the undersigned."

3. Upon being furnished the sale certificate, the petitioners vide letter dated December 17, 2012 requested the respondents to provide peaceful and vacant possession of the secured asset. Since no positive result yielded, a lawyer's notice dated April 27, 2013 was sent containing similar prayer. This request too proved abortive. Finding no other option, this writ petition dated December 23, 2013 was presented before the Court seeking, inter alia, order on the respondents to immediately and forthwith deliver peaceful and vacant physical possession of the secured asset in favour of the petitioners.

4. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit- in-opposition. It seems to be their version that the petitioners submitted their bid upon inspection of the secured asset on May 10, 2012; that the secured asset was put up for sale on "As is Where is basis" And "As is what is Basis" & "Whatever there is Basis" (hereafter as-is-where-is basis) and therefore, if they are obstructed in taking possession of the secured asset, it is their responsibility to have the occupants of the secured asset removed; and that the respondents have no liability to put the petitioners in possession, since they are neither the mortgagee of the secur