JASBIR SINGH, J.

1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against judgment passed by the learned Single Bench on 27.11.2008 by which, Civil Writ Petition no.19113 of 2005, filed by the appellants was dismissed. In that writ petition, the appellants had laid challenge to orders dated 30.9.2003 and 18.11.2005 passed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively. It was their prayer that the orders, referred to above, be quashed and order passed by the recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, chandigarh on 24.3.2003, be restored.

2. Record reveals that the Debt Recovery tribunal, Jaipur on 13.11.1997 passed an ex-parte decree in favour of respondent No.1 -Bank of India for an amount of rs.65,49,293.74, to be recovered from the appellants. Above said order had become final.

3. Pursuant to the said decree, a recovery certificate was issued against the appellants under Sec.19 of the Recovery of debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 (in short, 1993 Act ). When the appellants failed to make payment of decretal amount, respondent No.1, the Bank, filed an application before Debt Recovery tribunal, Chandigarh seeking sale of moveable and immovable properties lying mortgaged with it. Prayer was allowed vide order dated 20.9.2002. Shri K. C. Bhatia, Advocate was appointed as Court Auctioneer. Under his orders, mortgaged properties were put to auction on 20.11.2002. Reserve price for sale of the mortgaged properties (moveable and immovable) was fixed at Rs.75 lacs. Respondent No.2 was the successful bidder for an amount of Rs.86,40,000/-. Appellants filed an application to set aside above said auction, by alleging that the auction proceedings were manipulated and were not fair. Admittedly, that objection application was not filed as per provisions of Rules 60 and 61 of the second schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 1961 Act ). Taking note of the abovesaid fact, the Recovery Officer, on 28.2.2003, passed the following order:-

"objections to the sale can be filed under rule 60 or 61 - counsel for objector has not filed objections under these rules. The objector has alleged fraud which is not envisaged in these rules therefore, it will be proper to hear the objection to this limited extent. Counsel for C. H. Bank opposed this but I am not convinced. Counsel for objector requested for time, at request adjourned to 5.3.2003. "

(Emphasis supplied)

4 The appellants failed to prove any fraud in conduct of auction proceedings, however, the Recovery Officer, in a very surprising manner, took a somersault and decided objection application filed by the appellants on merits, by ignoring his earlier order, as referred to above. Vide order dated 24.3.2003, sale conducted on 20.11.2002 was set aside, amount deposited by respondent No.2 was ordered to be refunded to it. Respondent no.1-Bank of India went in appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 30.9.2003, setting aside order passed by the Recovery officer on 24.3.2003. The Recovery Officer was directed to proceed further for confirmation of the sale, as per law. Appellants went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Debt recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi on 18.11.2005. Under above mentioned circumstances, the appellants had filed CWP no.19113 of 2005, which was dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide the impugned order.

5. Before us, counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the sale was conducted in derogation to the provisions of Rules as contained in second schedule of 1961 Act. By making reference to report of auction, submitted by the Court Auctioneer mr. K. C. Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for the appellants submitted that an amount equivalent to 25% of the bid money, was not deposited with the Court Auctioneer immediately after conclusion of the auction proceedings. The Court Auctioneer was not justified in granting 24 hours time to deposit the abovesaid amount. Counsel further argued that the Recovery Officer was justified in deciding objection a