ORDER :

(P. Naveen Rao, J.)

1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri S.Ravi appearing for Sri V.Murali Manohar for petitioner (the borrower), and learned senior counsel Sri M.Narender Reddy appearing for Sri M.Srikanth Reddy for respondent-SBI (the bank) in W.P.No.21511 of 2020; learned senior counsel Sri Vivek Reddy appearing for Sri Manoj Reddy Keshi Reddy for petitioner (the auction purchaser), learned senior counsel M.Narender Reddy appearing for Sri M.Srikanth Reddy for respondent No.1 (the bank) and learned senior counsel Sri S.Ravi appearing for Sri V.Murali Manohar for respondent no.2 (the borrower) in W.P.No.13330 of 2021.

2. These two Writ Petitions concerns various measures taken by the State Bank of India to recover the loan amount from the borrower. As the Bank, the borrower and the auction purchaser are same, both Writ Petitions are heard together and decided by common order. For convenience, parties are referred to as borrower, the Bank and the auction purchaser respectively. The borrower is petitioner in W.P.No.21511 of 2020 and the auction purchaser is petitioner in W.P.No.13330 of 2021.

3. Borrower availed Rs.3.40 crores from the Bank. Borrower defaulted in repayment of loan. On 29.03.2011 loan account was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). On 19.04.2011 the Bank issued demand notice under Section 13(2) for recovery of Rs. 2,79,31,113/-. On 05.07.2011 possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued and on 11.02.2012, physical possession of the mortgaged property was taken. On 29.02.2012, 02.05.2012 and 26.02.2017, respondent-Bank issued three e-auction notices fixing the auction dates. The borrower challenged all the e-auction notices before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal granted conditional interim order. The borrower failed to comply with the conditional orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by failing to make the payment. The three auction proceedings were unsuccessful.

4. On 04.06.2017, the Bank issued a fourth e-auction notice fixing auction on 23.06.2017 for the sale of secured asset. The notice requires bidders to pay: i) the EMD of 10% of the reserved price on or before 21.06.2017; ii) 25% of the bid amount on the date of auction i.e., 23.06.2017 including 10% EMD; and iii) 75% of the bid amount within 15 days from the date of auction i.e., 08.07.2017. On 21.06.2019 auction purchaser deposited Rs. 87,20,000/- towards EMD i.e., 10% of fixed reserved price through cheque of the Bank and the Bank issued receipt of acknowledgement. The cheque was also encashed and the amount was transferred to concerned account of the Bank. In the e-auction held on 23.06.2017, the auction purchaser was declared as the highest bidder for INR 10.55 Cr. His bid exceeded the reserve price of Rs. 8.72 crore. Immediately after the e-auction, auction purchaser deposited 15% of the bid amount on the date of auction through an SBI cheque dated 23.06.2017. The cheque was not encashed immediately as the bank was waiting for orders of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). Four days ahead of the deadline auction purchaser deposited the balance 75% of the bid amount by way of an SBI cheque. On 05.07.2017, the Bank issued sale certificate in favour of auction purchaser after verifying that the account of the auction purchaser had sufficient balance.

5. Since borrower was filing several interlocutory applications to delay proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the auction purchaser filed W.P.No.35953 of 2018. This Hon’ble Court in its order in the writ petition observed that borrower has carried out a tirade and directed Debts Recovery Tribunal not to entertain any further interlocutory applications, at the instance of borrower, in S.A.No.447 of 2017.

6. However, borrower filed I.A.No.1866 of 2019 seeking for setting aside the fourth e-auction sale dated 23.06.2017 that was concluded in favour of auction purchaser. On 23.05.2019, Debts Recovery Tribunal passed order setting as