ORDER:

1) The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondents in not receiving and not registering the sale certificate dated 3.01.2020 produced by the petitioner-Bank in favour of the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the „SARFAESI Act‟) in respect of the property in dispute, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

2) Heard Mr.S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of Respondents. There is no representation on behalf of the unofficial respondents.

3) The circumstances, which lead to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

The 4th respondent herein offered the subject property as security to the petitioner-Bank for repayment of various loan facilities sanctioned to him.

As the 4th respondent committed default in payment of dues, in accordance with the agreed terms, the account of the 4th respondent was classified as NPA and accordingly, the procedure under SARFAESI Act was invoked for recovery of the amount. The subject property was sold in public e-auction on 20.12.2019 in favour of the 3rd respondent, after issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and the petitioner-Bank issued a sale certificate dated 3.01.2020 to him. When the petitioner-Bank approached 2nd respondent to register the sale certificate, they refused to register the same on the ground that they received attachment orders to the said property.

4) Challenging the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition came to be filed.

5) Sri S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue is no more resintegra and is covered by the orders passed by this Court. Referring Sections 26(E) and 34 of the SARFAESI Act, he would submit that the respondent cannot refuse to register the sale certificate. It is further stated that the unofficial respondents are not the secured creditors and the orders of attachment by the Civil Court came to be passed later while the date of hypothecation/mortgage was much prior to that date. Having regard to the above, he pleads that the action of the 2nd respondent is illegal and incorrect.

6) Learned Government Pleader for Revenue opposed the same, but however, does not dispute the law laid down in catena of judgments.

7) Before going further, it will be just and proper to refer Section

26(E) of the Act, which reads as under:

Section 26E: Priority to secured creditors-

“26E. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority.”

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), in cases where insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings are pending in respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the provisions of that Code.]

Section 31B of the Act 51 of 1993 reads as under:

31B. Priority to secured creditors-

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of secured creditors to realize secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority.”

Explanation- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of