JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel with learned advocate Mr.Baiju Joshi for the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Vinay Bairagar for respondent nos. 6 to 8, learned advocate Mr. Mr.K.K.Trivedi for respondent nos. 3 to 5 and learned AGP Ms.Dhwani R. Tripathi for respondent State.

2. These petitions are filed challenging the auction proceedings held on 09.05.2022 by respondent no. 3 – Surat Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., respondent no.4- Recovery Officer of the bank and respondent no.5-Sales Officer of the bank. The petitioners have further prayed for cancelling the Sale Certificate issued in favour of respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 by finalising the bid in their favour.

3. The petitioners of both the petitions have submitted their bids for purchase of property being Industrial Plot No.C-1 having area of 450.24 sq. mtrs, Plot No.C-2 having area of 497.12 sq. mtrs and Plot No.C-3 having area of 424.98 sq. mtrs. situated at Revenue Survey No.352, T.P Scheme No.4, Final Plot No.34 at Katargam, Surat in auction held by respondent nos. 3 to 5 of the aforesaid property belonging to the original borrower namely, M/s. Suryanarayan Silk Mills, a partnership firm and its partners.

4. The notice for auction was issued by respondent no.3 bank to sell the property in question on “As is where is basis” in Gujarati Daily newspaper “Gujarat Mitra”- Surat Edition on 05.03.2022 in the name of respondent no.5. As per the said advertisement, person who is desirous to participate in the auction proceedings was directed to deposit/submit the Demand Draft of 10% of the offer value by 05.05.2022 and the auction was to be held on 06.05.2022 at the head office of the respondent no.3 bank at Surat.

5. The petitioners upon reading the notice for auction approached the respondent no.3 bank so as to understand the detailed procedure and the petitioners were specifically told to submit cheque of local bank or local cheque of 10% of the bidding amount as per the auction notice.

6. The petitioners were further instructed that Demand Draft in place of cheque may be submitted at the time of auction. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 15060/2022 accordingly therefore, submitted cheque of Rs. 69 lakhs whereas the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.18857/2022 submitted a cheque of Rs.85,10,000/- being 10% of the offer price.

7. On 06.05.2022, the petitioners were informed by respondent nos. 3 to 5 that the auction has been postponed as some close relatives of the Sales Officer or the Recovery Officer had passed away and auction was rescheduled on 09.05.2022. The cheques given by the petitioners and other similarly situated bidders were also returned on the ground that instead of Demand Draft, cheque was deposited and therefore, such bidders were not permitted to take part in the auction proceedings.

8. It is the case of the petitioners that on 09.05.2022 the petitioners remained present along with the Demand Draft of Rs. 69 lakhs and Rs.85,10,000/- respectively and it was learned by the petitioners that all the seven bidders who had submitted their bids were held to be not qualified and eligible as per the remarks of Sales Officer. The petitioners were disqualified on the ground that instead of Demand Draft, the petitioners had submitted cheque of 10% of the offer price. However, the petitioners submitted the Demand Draft on the date of auction which was rescheduled on 09.05.2022.

9. It is the case of the petitioners that after rejecting the bid of all the seven bidders, respondent nos. 3 to 5 called just two of the bidders who had submitted Demand Draft but whose bids were also refused around 8:30 pm or 9:30 pm on 09.05.2022 and bids of respondent nos. 6 to 8 was accepted for Rs. 6,75,00,000/- which is admittedly less than the bid amount of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. No.18857/2022 of Rs. 8,51,00,000/-.

10. The petitioners on coming to