Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Shri Vipin Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri S.D. Sahai, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. Petitioner was a guarantor of an education loan of Rs. 20 lacs from respondent No. 2 Bank and mortgaged the property in question as security to the said loan. Admittedly, there was a default by the borrower and the loan was declared as Non Performing Asset and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (for short the ‘Act’) were initiated against the borrower as well as the petitioner. Objection/representation filed under Section 13 (3A) of the Act was rejected by the Bank. Subsequently, notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act was issued and the mortgaged property was put to auction.

3. It is an admitted case that the property was auctioned on 30.1.2016 and the sale was confirmed by the authorised officer on 2.2.2016. The auction notice dated 27.2.2015 was challenged by the petitioner by making application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow, which is still pending. Petitioner also approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 10877 of 2016 alleging that he was ready and willing to deposit the entire loan amount within a month. A Division Bench of this Court passed the following order on 15.3.2016.

“Learned counsel for the petitioner upon instructions states that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire loan amount within a month. He further submits that on or before 28.3.2016 the petitioner will deposit Rs. 7,00,000/- and the remaining amount as may be intimated by the Bank would be deposited on or before 30.4.2016.

Put up this case as a fresh case on 28.3.2016. By the said date the petitioner will fill a supplementary-affidavit annexing proof of receipt of deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- with the respondent Bank.

The execution of the sale-deed will remain stayed till 28.3.2016.

Sri Anil Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shashi Dhar Sahai may also obtain instructions by the next date.”

4. Petitioner has not disclosed in the pleadings anything further in respect of aforesaid writ petition. However, from the pleadings it appears that the writ petition was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to pursue the proceedings before the Tribunal.

5. On 18.3.2015, the Tribunal issued notices on the securitization application filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act. However, at any stage, no interim order was passed. When the proceedings were taken up on 1.2.2016, counsel appearing for the Bank informed the Tribunal that secured asset has been sold on 30th January, 2016. Petitioner also made an application for redemption of the mortgaged property. Respondent-Bank vide order dated 3.2.2016 rejected the redemption application on the ground not only the sale has been effected, but it has also been confirmed on 2.2.2016.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire outstanding dues of the Bank, therefore, he has a right of redemption of mortgaged property and the auction sale effected without considering his offer for redemption is patently illegal and void.

Section 13 (8) of the Act provides that, in case, the outstanding dues alongwith costs, charges and expenses incurred by the secured creditor are tendered to him at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the secured asset shall not be sold and no further steps shall be taken by the secured creditor for such transfer. The said Section reads as under.

“13. Enforcement of security interest.—

(1) ————

(2) ————

(3) ————

(4) ————

(5) ————

(6) ————

(7) ————

(8) If the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him are tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the secured asset shall not be sold or transferred by the secu