IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the authority to extend time for payment in e-auction cases under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite statutory limitations.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The successful bidder in an e-auction conducted on 27.12.2024 by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam in DRC No.78/2020 is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1667/2025. The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Recovery Officer rejecting the petitioner's application for extension of time to remit the balance 75% of the bid amount.

2. The e-auction was conducted on 27.12.2024. The petitioner successfully bid in auction for an amount of Rs.5,54,00,000/-. The petitioner submits that they complied with the requirements under Rule 57(1) o the 2^nd Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and remitted 25% of the bid amount totalling to Rs.1,38,50,000/- including AMD. The balance Rs.4,15,50,000/- was to be remitted on or before 10.01.2025. The petitioner submits that the petitioner duly remitted an amount of Rs.89,04,010/- towards the balance 25% amount, on 27.12.2024.

3. The petitioner faced unexpected delay in arranging the balance 75% bid amount. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P6 IA No.2/2025 on 03.01.2025 seeking to grant an extension of 20 days to remit the balance amount. The 1^st respondent, however, rejected the petitioner's request for extension, as per Ext.P7 order.

4. The petitioner states that though the 1^st respondent-Recovery Officer may not have the power to extend the time for repayment, this Court can indeed extend the time invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contends the petitioner.

5. W.P.(C) No.8019/2025 is filed by the petitioners, who were also participants in the auction sale, seeking to direct the 1^st respondent to confirm the sale of lot No.4 property covered in Ext.P2 admeasuring 168.39 Ares (4 Acres 16 Cents) in favour of the petitioners and to issue sale certificate in their name. The petitioners state that the scheduled properties of the borrowers were put up for sale in five lots and the petitioners bid for lot No.4 property admeasuring 168.39 Ares. The petitioners paid EMD of Rs.55 lakhs. They had offered Rs.5,52,00,000/- for the lot No.4 property. The 4^th respondent was the successful bidder. But, the 4^th respondent did not remit the amount in time.

6. The petitioners stated that the 4^th respondent ought to have paid the entire bid amount within the stipulated time. As the 4^th respondent did not pay the bid amount within the statutorily prescribed time, the 1^st respondent is legally bound to confirm the sale of lot No.4 in favour of the petitioners and to issue sale certificate.

7. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8019/2025 relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.N. Paramsivan and another v. Sunrise Plaza Tr Partner and others [ 2013 (4) SCR 1 ], of the Karnataka High Court in Ramesh Mehar v. The Recovery Officer and others [ 2013 KHC 3220 ], of the Bombay High Court in Kumar Urban Development Private Limited v. Indian Bank and others [ 2019 KHC 4805 ] and of this Court in Somasundaram v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another [ 2017 KHC 737 ]

8. The Bank filed counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.8019/2025. The Bank submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have alternate remedy. Even though the petitioners participated in the e-auction, their offer was less than that of the successful bidder. Therefore, the bid was confirmed in favour of the successful bidder. The bid has attained finality. The successful bidder has remitted the entire bid amount on 27.02.2025. The petitioners have approached this Court after withdrawing the EMD remitted by them, which itself shows that there is no bona fide on the part of the petitioners. W.P.(C) No.8019/2025 is therefore liable to be dismissed.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

10. As far as W.P.(C) No.1667/2025 is concerned, when the said writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order dated