JUDGMENT :

(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

1. S.L. Ispat Private Limited (in short, Ispat) and its Managing Director, the appellants herein preferred a writ petition being WP 31344 (W) of 2014 challenging a notice/e-mail dated 7th October, 2017 by which the Authorized Officer (in short, AO) of Punjab National Bank (in short, the bank) forfeited an amount of Rs.1,70,80,250/- (Rs.99,18,000.00 + Rs.71,62,250.00) being 25% of the total bid amount as deposited by the appellants upon emerging to be successful in the e-auction conducted on 6th September, 2017 pertaining to the properties detailed under serial nos.5 and 6 of the public notice for e-auction dated 29th July, 2017. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 4th January, 2018, which has been impugned in the present appeal.

2. The appellants’ case is that the AO of the bank published a public notice dated 29th July, 2017 inviting bids for sale of properties. The appellant no.2 visited the premises on 10th August, 2017 when he was informed by the security guards that the entire land including plant and machineries are the assets as detailed under serial nos.5 and 6 of the said notice and such fact was also confirmed and reiterated by the AO over phone. Ispat participated in the e-auction on 6th September, 2017 and submitted bids for the properties as detailed under serial nos.5 and 6 of the said notice being a Rolling Mill and land/building respectively. By two letters both dated 6th September, 2017, Ispat being the appellant no.1 was intimated that the assets are being sold on ‘as is where is basis’ and ‘as is what is basis’ and the appellants were directed to deposit 25% of the sale price as initial deposit immediately. Such payment was made on 7th September, 2017. Immediately thereafter the appellants started receiving phone calls from the previous owner, namely, Brilliant Steel Products Private Limited (in short, Brilliant) informing that the land upon which the plant exists is not in possession of the bank and threatening the appellants of dire consequences in the event Ispat pays the remaining amount and attempts to take possession of the properties. Intimating such facts, the appellant no.2 sought for a clarification from the bank as regards ownership rights of the bid assets by a representation dated 16th September, 2017 but in vain. About a week thereafter by letters dated 22nd September, 2017, Ispat was asked to deposit the remaining amount on or before 21st September, 2017 and before execution of an agreement for sale. The appellant no.2 submitted further representations on 25th September, 2017 and 5th October, 2017 requesting the bank to postpone the time towards payment of the remaining amount. Surprisingly thereafter, the appellants received a copy of a writ petition being WP No.25708 (W) of 2017 preferred by Brilliant and its functionary inter alia praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the bank to give effect to the proposal for one time settlement (in short, OTS) furnished by letter dated 1st August, 2017. Ispat was impleaded as a party respondent in the said writ petition. Thereafter, the appellants were served with a notice/e-mail dated 7th October, 2017 stating inter alia that the money already deposited by it stands forfeited. Challenging the said notice/e-mail the present writ petition was filed on 21st December, 2017 enclosing two further representations submitted by the appellants on 9th October, 2017 and 15th December, 2017 to which the bank did not respond.

3. The bank’s case is that on 28th October, 2011 the respondent no.2 issued a notice u/s 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, SARFAESI Act) calling upon Brilliant to repay the dues of Rs.27,15,77,642.50/- and thereafter the bank issued possession notice on 25th May, 2012. The auction sale notice was issued on 29th July, 2017. Ispat participated in the e-auction and was declared to be the success