Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad whereby the Securitisation Application No. 205 of 2016 filed by the petitioners under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) has been rejected being not maintainable. The petitioners are also challenging the directions issued by the respondent No. 2 namely the Chairperson/In-Charge of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the DRAT’) dated 13.9.2017 whereby guidelines have been issued by the Appellate Authority in exercise of power of superintendence to the Debt Recovery Tribunals in the matter of applications under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. In short, the dispute being raised herein is regarding the rejection of the Securitisation Application on the ground that the said application was maintainable only after one of the measures under Section 13(4) is taken by the Secured Creditor (respondent-Bank) is complete and actual physical possession of the Secured Assets is taken by it.

4. Before the Court dwell upon the controversy at hand certain facts of the case are relevant to be narrated here. The petitioners were granted two credit facilities for aggregated amount of Rs. 7,60,000/- as Cash Credit Limit and Rs. 1,61,5000/- as Term Loan on 19.2.2010 under the Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme. The loan accounts of the petitioners were declared Non Performing Assets (NPA) by the Secured Creditor on 30.6.2013. The demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (in short the Rules, 2002) was issued on 5.10.2014.

5. The contention of the petitioners is that the proceedings under Rule 8(4) of the Rules, 2002 had been undertaken by the Secured Creditor before service of notice under Section 13(2) read with Rule 8(1) as aforesaid.

6. The possession notice under Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2002 was published in two daily newspaper on 10.4.2014 without compliance of the Rule 8(1). The E-auction notice was, thereafter, published by the Secured Creditor. The petitioners filed Securitisation Application No. 364 of 2014 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad on 30.9.2014 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 seeking quashing of the entire recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank as also the notice for E-auction sale published in the daily newspaper. The aforesaid application was dismissed on 28.8.2015. The dismissal order was challenged in appeal filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Appellate Tribunal, which according to the petitioners, is still pending.

7. In the meantime, the date for E-auction was fixed on 21.6.2016 by a notice dated 10.5.2016 and, as such, the petitioners filed Securitisation Application No. 205 of 2016 on 21.5.2016. It appears that the Appellate Tribunal in the above noted pending appeal passed a restraint order on 21.6.2016 subject to the condition of deposit of 25% of the debt. It is contended by the petitioners that the officers of the Secured Creditor auctioned the Secured Assets in an arbitrary manner to respondent No. 5 at a throw-away price of Rs. 23.65 Lakhs. Contention is that as per the report of the Authorized Valuer, the valuation of the Secured Assets on the date of sanction of the loan i.e. 19.2.2010 was approximately 30 Lakhs. The Secured Creditor (the respondent-Bank), on the other hand, fixed reserve price of the property to the tune of Rs. 27.50 Lakhs.

8. It is stated that the Secured Creditor moved an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 15.6.2016 before the District Magistrate for providing assistance to take possession of the Secured Assets under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is contended that the application