JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is at the instance of the bank (respondent in writ petition) challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29th of June, 2022 whereby WPA 12168 of 2021 filed by the respondent herein (writ petitioner) has been allowed.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the respondent No. 1 is the auction purchaser in the e-auction held by the appellant bank on 8th of January, 2021 under the SARFAESI Act. Respondent no. 1 being the successful bidder had deposited Rs.6,27,500/- being 25% of the bid impugned on the day of auction and sale confirmation letter was issued on 9th of January, 2021 directing the respondent No. 1 to pay the remaining 75% of the balance amount within 15 days. The respondent No. 1 thereafter had deposited further amount. According to the petitioner, he had deposited Rs.17,88,500/- before 25th of January, 2021. On 6th of February, 2021, the bank had issued notice to the respondent No. 1 writ petitioner requesting him to deposit the balance amount of Rs.7,21,500/- within February 12, 2021. The stand of the petitioner is that on 12th of February, 2021, when he had gone to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 7,21,500/- he was not permitted to do so by the bank authorities on the ground that he had reached the bank after the banking hours. The writ petitioner, therefore, demanding refund of the entire money vide communication dated 24th of February, 2021 which was turned down by the appellant bank by communication dated 02.03.2021 stating that since the full amount was not deposited within time, therefore, the sum of Rs. 17,88,500/- deposited by the writ petitioner was liable to be forfeited. Hence, in the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed form a direction to quash the communication dated 2nd of March, 2021 and further direction to refund the entire amount.

3. Learned Single Judge has taken the view that the bank had acted contrary to Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 by extending the time for deposit of balance amount unilaterally, therefore, the writ petition has been allowed by directing the appellant bank to return the amount of Rs.17,88,500/-.

4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the bank is that the writ petitioner is not entitled to refund of the amount and the same has been forfeited in terms of the Rule 9 of the Rules.

5. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Rule 9(1) to 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 which are relevant for present controversy provide as under:

“9. Time of sale, Issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession:

(1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower:

Provided further that if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale.

(2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor:

Provided that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-rule (5) of Rule 8:

Provided further that if the authorised officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price.

(3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediate