*****

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of writ of Mandamus seeking quashing of the letters dated 12.06.2020 (Annexure P-32), dated 29.01.2022 (Annexure P-37), dated 31.01.2022 (Annexure P-38), dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-43) dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-48) whereby respondent No.1-Bank has cancelled the sale bid of the petitioner w.e.f. 21.03.2020 and forfeited the amount of ₹1,07,00,000/- deposited with the respondent Bank under e-auction, besides seeking other reliefs.

2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner, a private limited company is that in pursuance to sale notice dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner participated in the auction held on 06.03.2020 and deposited the earnest money and gave the highest bid of ₹4,25,00,000/- and was declared highest bidder. Thereafter, on 06.03.2020 at about 1:48 PM, MSTC-ecommerce issued a auto generated e-mail under the heading “Sale Confirmation Letter” communicating to the petitioner that as per the decision of the authorized Officer the bid of petitioner amounting to ₹4,25,00,000/- is accepted as highest bid and petitioner is declared as successful bidder. It was mentioned in the e-mail that the same being from the Authorized Officer and being auto generated through computer system, hence needed no signature. It is averred that in this letter the respondent Bank omitted to provide the basic information such as detailed description of the property in question, area of property, name of village, Khasra numbers, title deed etc. rather only property ID was mentioned. The Bank details viz IFSC code, Name of Bank, account Number etc. were also not mentioned. However, through subsequent e-mails the respondent Bank provided/confirmed all these basic details. It is averred that in violation of the provisions contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( in short hereinafter referred to SARFAESI Act) and also Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (in short Rules of 2002) this system generated e-mail dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure P-3) did not comply with the basic requirements. Despite the respondent Bank not supplying the requisite “sale confirmation letter”, the petitioner deposited initial 25% payment before the stipulated date i.e. 07.03.2020 (Annexure P-10). Even though the respondent-Bank failed to fulfill its mandatory statutory obligations by issuing confirmation of sale as per Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002. The petitioner sent repeated e-mails seeking requisite information and requested for extension of time to make balance payment on 18.03.2020 (Annexure P-15) which was also not replied by the Bank. A reply by Bank dated 09.03.2020 was received asking the petitioner to deposit the balance amount up to 21.03.2020 i.e within 15 days of the system generated mail communicating the sale confirmation.

2.1 It is averred that on account of non compliance by the respondent-Bank, petitioner complained through e-mail dated 21.03.2020 (Annexure P-18) to the higher authorities of the respondent-Bank which was replied by the Bank intimating that earnest money of ₹1,07,00,000/- has been received and that “sale confirmation letter” had already been issued on 11.03.2020 by the Bank. It is stated that the respondent Bank had for the first time in its e-mail dated 30.03.2020 mentioned about the alleged “confirmation of sale” letter dated 11.03.2020 having been issued when even the 15 days period for making balance payment had already expired on 26.03.2020.

2.2 A fraud had been played by the Bank officials with the petitioner by not supplying him the correct description of the property despite repeated demands and issuing the alleged “sale confirmation letter” not in accordance with rules and regulations and to cover their own default, the respondent Bank had issued letter dated 12.06.2020