By the Court.—In compliance of the order dated 19.8.2013, the officers of the UCO Bank, who had participated in the process of auction, namely, Sri Aarti Prasad, Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Main Office, Kolkatta, Sri J.S. Sana, Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Sujatganj Branch, Sri Ganga Ram, Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Amipur Estate and Sri Surabhi Verma, Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Chinhat Branch, are present in person.

2. Heard Sri Ravindra Nath Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3, Sri Prashant Arora, Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri Umesh Chandra Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

3. Petitioner, who is auction purchaser of Plot No. 12, Khasra 347 situated at Mohibullapur, District Lucknow, has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1 to take appropriate steps for getting the house in question free from all encumbrances. It has also been prayed that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 to take appropriate action against the previous owner of the house in question as well as against the opposite party No. 1 to get the amount recovered from them forthwith.

4. Shorn off unnecessary the details of the facts are as under :

M/s Raj Nursing Home, Prop. Dr. Ram Kumar Singh [hereinafter referred to as the “borrower”], was advanced various financial facilities by the UCO Bank, I.T. College Branch, Lucknow after mortgaging Plot No. 12, Khasra No. 347, situated at Mohibullapur, District Lucknow but on default of the payment of bank dues, the Authorised Officer, under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 (12) read with rule of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2002”] issued demand notice dated 16.3.2006 to the borrower. The notice was delivered to the borrower by hand against their acknowledgement but even then, borrower had failed to pay the Bank’s dues and as such, the Authorised Officer of the Bank had issued possession notice of the property on 4.9.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 (4) of the Act. Accordingly, the physical possession of the mortgaged property in question was taken by the Authorised Officer on 9.7.2007 and possession notice was published in two newspaper i.e. ‘The Indian Express’ dated 9.7.2007 and ‘Rastriya Sahara’ on 26.7.2007. Subsequently, the possession-cum-notice for inviting tenders for the sale of the property for realisation of the Bank’s dues was issued on 18.2.2008 and the same was published in the news paper, namely, ‘The Financial Express’ dated 19.2.2008 and ‘Dainik Jagran’ dated 19.2.2008. As no bidder came forward to purchase the said property and as such, date of inviting tenders was extended and the same was published in the news papers, namely, ‘Financial Express’ dated 23.6.2008 and ‘Rastriya Sahara’ on 24.6.2008 but again no bidder came and as such, the date of inviting tender was extended till 19.7.2008 and the same was published in the newspaper, namely, ‘Financial Express’ dated 9.7.2008 and ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ dated 10.7.2008.

5. Pursuant to the publication made in ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ dated 10.7.2008, petitioner filed her tender before the Authorised Officer by participating in its draw for purchase of the aforementioned property. Since out of tenders received, the tender submitted by the petitioner was found highest i.e. Rs. 13,35,500/- and as such, a sale certificate dated 18.9.2008 was being issued in favour of the petitioner, mentioning therein that immovable property i.e. Plot No. 12, Khasara No. 347, Mohibullahpur, Tehsil and District Lucknow (2510 sq.ft.) se