ORDER:

1) The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 in not receiving and not registering the sale certificate dated 25.04.2022 produced by the petitioner-Bank in favour of the 7th 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 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 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 6th respondent herein offered the subject property as security to the petitioner-Bank for repayment of various loan facilities sanctioned to him.

As the 6th respondent committed default in payment of dues, in accordance with the agreed terms, the account of the 6th 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 21.04.2022 in favour of the 7th respondent, after issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and the petitioner-Bank issued a sale certificate dated 25.04.2022 to him. When the petitioner-Bank approached respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 27.04.2022 to register the sale certificate, they refused to register the same on the ground that they received attachment orders issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits. The 4th respondent issued a letter to the petitioner dated 30.04.2022, requesting the petitioner- Bank to withhold the remaining amount after adjusting the bank dues. The 3rd respondent also informed that the 5th respondent obtained a registered mortgage deed for the same subject property on 29.04.2021 before the 3rd respondent. The mortgage created in favour of the 5th respondent is subsequent to 13(2) notice issued by the Bank, which is impermissible under Section 13 of the Act, as such both charges created by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are subsequent to mortgage created by 6th respondent in favour of the petitioner- Bank. As per Section 26-E of the Act, the claim of the petitioner-Bank will prevail over the claims of the respondents 4 and 5 and they are entitled to take the balance amount left after the Bank?s entire due is discharged. Once the registered mortgage is subsisting in favour of the petitioner-Bank for the same subject property, the second mortgage obtained by the 5th respondent is null and void.

4) Challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 and

3, 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 respondents 4 and 5 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 respondents 2 and 3 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