The judgment established the availability of remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for aggrieved parties due to auction cancellation.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, vide the present petition prays for the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the decision/ order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) taken by the Respondents/Respondent no. 3 cancelling the auction process, after the Petitioner was successful in the auction and had deposited the 25 percent of the price of the auctioned property.

(ii) Issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to deem the sale of the auctioned property in favour of the Petitioner as confirmed and to issue sale certificate in her favour after accepting the balance 75 percent price of the auctioned property.

(iii) Pass any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit.

(iv) To allow the Writ petition with cost of the litigation."

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was declared a successful bidder in an e-auction conducted on 22.03.2022 by respondent-Bank in respect of certain mortgaged property. Pursuant to the same, she deposited 25% of the sale price on 23.03.2022. However, respondent No.3 cancelled the auction process on 31.03.2022.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that he had served a legal notice to the respondents calling upon them to withdraw the e-mail dated 02.04.2022, whereby, the decision to cancel the auction had been communicated to the petitioner and to further issue a demand letter regarding the remaining 75% of the bid price. Since there was no fruitful outcome of the same, therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. After service of the notice, the respondents have filed their reply. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that they received a One- Time Settlement (OTS) proposal from the borrower, which was acceptable in view of the applicable policy of the RBI, and pursuant to the same, they have settled the account of the principal borrower. The respondents also state that the bid offered by the petitioner was for Rs.3,53,00,000/- and the borrower proposed an OTS offer for Rs.3,82,00,000/-. The respondents, therefore, state that in their commercial wisdom, they have cancelled the e-auction dated 22.03.2022 and accepted the OTS proposal dated 21.03.2022 and accordingly, the decision was communicated to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the decision so taken by the respondents, is contrary to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the `SARFAESI Act, 2002') and the same is arbitrary and illegal, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed in the instant petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 626 and states that the petitioner has no remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `DRT') in terms of the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in paragraphs 30 and 31 has held as under:

"30. In our view, therefore, the expression any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by secured creditor or his authorized officer in Section 17(1) would include all actions taken by the secured creditor under the Rules which relate to the measures specified in Section13(4).

31. The auction purchaser (appellant herein) is one such person, who is aggrieved by the action of the secured creditor in forfeiting their money. The appellant, therefore, falls within the expression any person as specified under Section 17(1) and hence is entitled to ch