ORDER

Pankaj Mithal, CJ.—All the above petitions are identical in nature and arise out of the proceedings for sale/e-auction of the mortgage property, hence they have been taken up together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the parties addressed the court on the basis of the facts narrated in writ petition WP (C) No. 108/2021 titled M/s. Col Nature Fabrications and Another vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Another. Accordingly, we treat the aforesaid petition as the leading one and considering the facts as appearing therein proceed to decide all four of them together.

3. We feel it appropriate only to narrate the facts of the aforesaid leading petition so as to adjudicate upon the points raised by either of the parties.

4. It appears that the petitioner took financial assistance from the Punjab and Sind Bank in the year 2012 and defaulted in its return as per the terms and conditions. Accordingly, the account of the petitioner was declared as non-performing-asset (NPA) on 30.06.2014 and the Bank proceeded to realize the dues from the mortgaged property which happened to be an open plot of Khasra No. 666/295 min village Kaithpur, Salmeri District Samba.

5. The petitioner was issued notice dated 14.10.2014 purported to be under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act) requiring it to pay the dues within a period of 60 days.

6. Another notice to the same effect under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 14.12.2014. Lastly, a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued on 03.02.2017 but the petitioner failed to discharge its liability. Thereafter, a notice for taking possession was issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act on 19.08.2017 and the possession of the mortgaged property was also taken over.

7. After all the above exercise, the Bank has now issued a sale/e- auction notice dated 05.01.2021 which has been published in the newspaper on 06.01.2021 fixing the date for the auction of the mortgaged property so as to realize the dues of the Bank. The said auction notice notifies 08th February 2021 as the date of sale and mentions the reserve price of the mortgaged property to be Rs. 2,87,00,000/-. The footnote clearly states that it should be treated as notice under Rule 8 (6) /9 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).

8. It is pertinent to mention here that in all the four writ petitions the same sale/e-auction notice is under challenge.

9. The petitioner by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, by means of this petition has prayed for the issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned e-auction /sale notice dated 05.01.2021 published in three connected petitions newspaper ‘Indian Express’ dated 06.01.2021 and that the respondents be directed not to interfere in its business. The petitioner has not claimed any other relief and has not challenged any other notice, i.e., either the one issued under Section 13(2) or 13 (4) of the Act.

10. Sh. Ajay Kumar Gandotra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act and that the court cannot take over the responsibility of the Tribunal so as to adjudicate upon the validity of the sale/e-auction notice.

11. Sh. Raghu Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the above preliminary objection submitted that the sale/e-auction notice under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction and that as it has been issued in violation of the statutory provisions, he is entitled to maintain the writ petition before the court. The alternate remedy is not an absolute bar and that Section 17 of the Act does not in any way come in his way.

12. The facts as stated above clearly demons