Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral):- Challenge in the present writ petition is to the instructions dated 13.06.2012 (Annexure P-13) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance directing the Presiding Officers of the Debt Recovery Tribunals to conduct all auctions electronically (for short “the e-auction”).

2. Though the petitioner has also challenged the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the matter of attachment and sale, but we leave that question open to the petitioner to seek their adjudication before the appropriate forum. In the present writ petition, we restrict ourselves to examine the challenge to the conduct of e-auction.

3. Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) confers power under Section 29 of the said Act with the Debt Recovery Tribunal to sell the property of the certificate debtors in terms of 2nd and 3rd Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules’). Part-III of 2nd Schedule to the Income Tax Act deals with attachment and sale of immovable property. Rule 56 of the Rules contemplates sale by public auction. The said Rule reads as under:

“Sale to be by auction

56. The sale shall be by public auction to the highest bidder and shall be subject to confirmation by the Tax Recovery Officer:

Provided that no sale under this Rule shall be made if the amount bid by the highest bidder is less than the reserve price, if any, specified under clause (cc) of rule 53.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that e-auction i.e. where the intending bidders give their bids not in person, but through the medium of electronics on computer in a prescribed format, is not a public auction within the meaning of Rule 56 of the Rules. In support of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, Madras & others Vs. Contromix Pvt. Ltd. by its Director (Finance) Seetharaman, Madras & another AIR 1995 SC 1632. Mr. Singh has further argued that e-auction may be relevant where the intending bidders are the corporate and educated citizens, but where the property to be sold is located in the remote rural areas without any computer facility or computer knowing personnel or when the intending bidders are not computer literate, the process of e-auction will actually frustrate the intention of obtaining maximum price for the property to be sold. Therefore, such process of auction is not legal and valid.

5. It is further contended that Central Government cannot issue any direction to conduct e-auction to a quasi judicial Tribunal, which is discharging judicial functions, when it orders sale of the immovable property.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon Sections 4 and 10-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to contend that the electronic format is a substitute for anything which shall be required to be done in writing or in the type-written or in the printed form. Both the Sections read as under:

“4. Legal recognition of electronic records – Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in writing or in the type-written or printed form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is –

(a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and

(b) accessible as as to be usable for a subsequent reference.”

“10-A. Validity of contracts formed through electronic means – where in a contract formation, the communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, the revocation of proposals and acceptances, as the case may be, are expressed in electronic form or by means of an electronic form or by means of an electronic record, such contract shall not be deemed to be unenforceable solely on the ground that such electronic form or means