Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Shri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manish Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Bank.

2. The petitioners, by this writ petition have prayed for quashing the e-auction notice dated 25.8.2013, issued by the Bank for auction of the mortgaged assets in exercise of power under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the “Act, 2002”).

3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are: On an application made by the petitioner No. 1 through petitioner No. 2 a Cash Credit Limit of an amount of Rs. 1.5 Crores was sanctioned by the Bank in favour of the petitioner No. 1. Similarly, on an application made by the petitioner No. 3, through petitioner No. 4 a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 1 Crore was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner No. 3 by the Bank. The account of the petitioners No. 1 and 3 were declared NPA on 28.9.2012. A demand notice dated 6.5.2013, under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued calling the petitioner No. 1 to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,17,663.46 and the petitioner No. 3 to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,11,977.88. Thereafter the Bank invoked power under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 and issued e-auction notice dated 25.8.2013 inviting online tenders for auction of the mortgaged assets. Copy of the e-auction notice dated 25.8.2013 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition which indicates that a detailed procedure for submitting the bid by electronic transaction has been provided for. Details of the properties to be auctioned has been mentioned in the notice with area and boundaries. Reserved price has also been mentioned in the notice dated 25.8.2013, 27.9.2013 has been fixed as the date and time as 11 a.m. to 12 Noon for e-auction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petition contended that the sale of the mortgaged assets is to be conducted in accordance with the rules namely; The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter called the “Rules, 2002”) which rules do not provide for e-auction for sale of the mortgaged assets, hence the e-auction notice dated 25.8.2013 is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that Rule 8 of the Rules, 2002 provides for sale of the immovable secured assets and under rule 8(5) of the Rules, 2002, the sale of e-auction is not provided for, hence the Bank transgressed its jurisdiction in issuing the notice for e-auction dated 25.8.2013. It is submitted that when the statutory rule provides for a particular method for sale of the mortgaged assets, no other procedure can be adopted by the Bank.

5. Shri Manish Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the Bank refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the notice issued by the bank for e-auction dated 25.8.2013, is well within the powers of the Bank given under the Rules, 2002. It is submitted that the e-auction is nothing but a species of the auction and no exception can be taken by the petitioners to the sale of the mortgaged assets by e-auction. It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier filed writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 38482/2013 and 38483/2013, challenging the notice given by the Bank under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 as well as the decision taken by the Bank deciding the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 13(3A) of the Act, 2002. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 18.7.2013 on the ground that the petitioners have a statutory remedy available under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 as and when the Bank invokes power under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002. It is submitted that against the notice dated 25.8.2013, the remedy available to the petitioners is to file an appeal under Section 17 and this writ petition be not entertained.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Cour