The Recovery Officer should cancel the auction sale if the bank's dues are paid before the sale is confirmed. The auction purchaser has no right over the property before the sale is confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 1-Bank of Baroda (for short "BOB"), as well as Mr. Vishal Agarwal, learned counsel representing respondent no. 3, and gone through the record.

2. The present petition has been filed, invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 12.05.2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the Recovery Officer has ordered for taking forcible possession from the petitioner of the mortgaged property, being building constructed over land measuring 5000.00 sq. ft. of Khasra No.797/01, Bhillawan, Ward Geetapalli, Alambagh, Lucknow.

3. The petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 12 lakhs for business purposes from the BOB on 06.11.2004 and mortgaged the property, being building constructed over land measuring 5000.00 sq. ft. of Khasra No.797/01, Bhillawan, Ward Geetapalli, Alambagh, Lucknow.

4. The BOB had filed Original Application No. 154 of 2010 before the Tribunal for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,34,234=00 against the petitioner.

5. The Original Application No. 154 of 2010 was decided ex-parte vide order dated 17.09.2010.

6. The petitioner came to know about the said order dated 17.09.2010 in the year 2011 and, he filed Appeal No.96 of 2011, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2012.

7. In the meantime, the BOB had proposed to auction the mortgaged property and, the mortgaged property was auctioned in favour of respondent no. 3- on 31.01.2013.

8. The respondent no. 3 had deposited some token amount with the BOB. The petitioner filed statutory objection against the auction proceedings on 28.02.2013.

9. Ms. Shreya Chaudhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that before the confirmation of the sale, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount with up-to date interest with the BOB i.e. Rs. 19,50,000=00 through Bank Draft No.119413 dated 03.05.2003 issued by the Corporation Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and, the said bank draft was accepted by the BOB towards the full and final settlement of the loan amount.

10. The BOB had issued 'no dues certificate' to the petitioner and, also written letter dated 07.05.2013 to the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal to the said effect.

11. An affidavit dated 10.05.2013 was also filed by the BOB before the Recovery Officer. The BOB had requested the Recovery Officer that prior to confirmation of the sale, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount with up-to date interest amount to Rs. 19,50,000=00 and, no other loan amount remained unpaid.

12. In view of above, the BOB had requested the Recovery Officer to drop the proceedings pursuant to auction sale. However, the Recovery Officer, who heard the matter on 17.05.2013, vide order dated 28.06.2013 passed in DRC No. 556 of 2010 rejected the request of the BOB for dropping the proceedings and ordered the BOB to refund Rs.19,50,000=00 to the petitioner. The Recovery Officer, thereafter, on the same day, confirmed the sale in favour of respondent no. 3.

13. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 4407 (M/S) of 2013 against the order dated 28.06.2013, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.07.2013 with liberty to the petitioner for filing appeal under Section-30 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the Act, 1993").

14. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was numbered as Appeal No.05 of 2013.

15. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent no. 3 had moved an application in Case No. DRC 556 of 2010 before the Recovery Officer and the Recovery Officer passed the order dated 24.03.2014 for providing police protection to the respondent no. 3 for taking over possession of the mortgaged property.

16. The petitioner had filed an application for recalling the order dated 24.03.2014 b