ORDER :

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for refund of the forfeited amount pursuant to failure of the petitioner to make the balance payment of 75% of the auction price of the property in question.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The petitioner made an application in e-auction held by the respondent bank for purchase of the property being free old land to the extent of 249.71 sq.mts. at plot No.24-25, Block No.129/ paiki 15, 129/ paiki 16, property no.992, ten road, Bardoli and building there at to the extent of 6239 sq. ft. (Ground floor – RCC – 1441 sq. ft.- Slopping roof 1349 sq. ft. + First Floor RCC 1820 sq. ft. - slopping roof – 427 sq. ft. + second floor 1202 sq. ft.) standing in the name of Mr.Nitinbhai Naginbhai Panchal, Mr.Jayeshbhai Naginbhai Panchal and Mr.Dilipbhai Naginbhai Panchal.

2.2 The auction sale was conducted on 20.09.2022 and the petitioner offered highest bid of Rs.1,08,00,000/-. After giving set off of the earnest money deposit of Rs.10,70,000/- deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner was asked by the respondent bank vide letter dated 20.09.2022 to deposit the balance amount of Rs.16,30,000/- being 25% of the bid amount before 21.09.2022.

2.3 The petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rs.27,00,000/- being 25% of the bid amount of Rs.1,08,00,000/- on 20.09.2022. The petitioner was therefore asked by the respondent bank vide letter dated 20.09.2022 to deposit the remaining 75% of the bid amount amounting to Rs.81,00,000/- within 15 days i.e. on or before 05.10.2022, as per the Sub-rule (5) of the Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short “the Rules”).

2.4 The petitioner by letter dated 03.10.2022 sought extension of time for payment of remaining 75% of the amount of Rs.81,00,000/-.

2.5 It appears that in the meanwhile, the respondent bank was in negotiation with the original borrower and accordingly by letter dated 14.11.2022 addressed to the original borrower, it was informed by the bank that the One Time Settlement (herein after referred to as “O.T.S”) proposal for Rs.6,50,00,000/- was accepted by the respondent bank and the cut-off date for payment was kept on 30.11.2022.

2.6 By letter dated 28.11.2022, however, the respondent bank again informed the original borrower to adhere to the time limit to avail the benefit of O.T.S before 30.11.2022 with a stipulation that no further time will be granted.

2.7. According to learned advocate, copies of these letters were provided to the petitioner by the respondent Bank and the petitioner was informed not to make payment of balance amount.

2.8 It appears that as the original borrower did not make the payment as per the O.T.S., the respondent bank by letter dated 06.12.2022 informed the petitioner to make the payment of remaining amount of Rs.81,00,000/- before 19.12.2022 as per the provision of Rule 9(4) of the Rules with a stipulation that no time can be extended beyond the said date as that is a mandatory requirement under the said Rules that the respondent bank can grant time for payment of the sale consideration to the auction purchaser up to 90 days from the date of auction.

2.9 The respondent bank by letter dated 16.12.2022 again informed the petitioner to deposit Rs.81,00,000/- on or before 19.12.2022, failing which, the amount of Rs.27,00,000/- remitted by the petitioner would be forfeited.

2.10 The petitioner thereafter on 17.12.2022 informed the bank as to within what time the sale document would be executed and within what time the possession of the property would be given to the petitioner after making the full payment, but, did not make the payment of Rs.81,00,000/- before 19.12.2022.

2.11 The petitioner by letter dated 18.12.2022 addressed to the Authorized Officer of the respondent Bank in reply to the letter dated 06.12.2022 informed to the respondent Bank that in view of the acceptance of the O.T.S. of the borrower, the petitioner wh