JUDGMENT :

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1. The petitioner herein has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent-Bank to deliver land and building including plant and machinery placed in Khasra No.20/1 and 22/1/2, which were shown by the officials of the Bank on the date of inspection of the property, i.e. on 26.05.2022 and which was approved in pursuant to the sale notice dated 19.04.2022 with date of auction as 30.05.2022 (Annexure P-1). Alternatively seeking refund of earnest money being 25% of the bid amount deposited by the petitioner with 15% interest per annum.

2. In nut shell, the contention of the petitioner has been that he has been successful bidder qua the property mentioned in Lot No.1 and Lot No.2 auctioned by the respondent Bank in the auction held on 30.05.2022 in pursuance to the auction notice dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure P-1). Prior to the auction, the petitioner inspected the properties on 26.05.2022 and the Bank had shown the area intended to be sold through the said auction to the petitioner which depicted the land and building, plant and machinery of rice sheller and flour mill, and that the entire complex was having a single boundary wall. Based on the same, the petitioner had participated in the said auction, bidding for properties mentioned in serial No.5 and 6 of the auction notice dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure P-1).

2.1 Being the successful bidder, the respondent Bank issued letter of acceptance of the bid dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner had deposited 25% of the bid amount.

2.2 The petitioner was informed by the borrower-defaulter that some of the property which was not mortgaged to the Bank by him had also been shown by the Bank during inspection and in fact the plant and machinery of the rice sheller, installed in Khasra No. 20/1, had never been mortgaged to the Bank. It was further informed that the property had not been demarcated or partitioned.

2.3 The petitioner approached the revenue patwari and got the sketch map prepared, copy of which is Annexure P-3. It was revealed to the petitioner that hyphothecated machinery of rice sheller is installed in Khasra No. 20/1 and 22/1/2 which is not part of land mortgaged with the Bank, however the Bank during inspection had shown it to be part and parcel of the mortgaged property. That the mortgaged and unmortgaged land is not demarcated by the Bank and is having a common boundary wall. The Flour mill shown during inspection on 26.05.2022 as part of auction notice was not present in the mortgaged property. The petitioner had given bid pursuant to the auction notice on the premise that their existed a flour mill too.

2.4 On coming to know about the aforesaid irregularities in the auction, petitioner informed the Bank seeking extension of time under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement rules) 2002, and the time to deposit was extended till 23.08.2022. In the meanwhile the petitioner on 11.08.2022 sought clarification regarding the property in question, vide letter dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner had sufficient funds to deposit the bid amount as is evident from the statement of account (Annexure P-7). But on account of title of the properties intended to be sold by the Bank being not proper, petitioner requested the Bank to clarify the position.

2.5 As per the petitioner, it is the duty of the Bank- secured creditor to disclose the correct information to the prospective buyers about the property which it intends to sell as per Rule 8(7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement rules) 2002. The petitioner is ready to purchase the entire unit as shown during the inspection; however, on account of improper description and the absence of flour mill, plant and machinery in the mortgaged portion of land which is undivided and not partitioned from the property mortgaged under single boundary wall. In the alternative petitioner seeks refund of the earnest money deposited alon