KUMAR ROHIT Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The same petitioner approached this Court in WPC No. 2075/2016 inter-alia alleging that without confirmation of sale in terms of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in respect of E-auction sale held on 07.04.2016 by the same respondent Bank for the same property, Bank is insisting upon payment of balance 75% amount and intends to forfeit 25% of the Bid amount. That writ petition was disposed of on 22.04.2016 after recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on instruction, that sale certificate would be issued in favour of the petitioner without any delay, who has been declared to be the highest bidder and is supposed to deposit the balance 75% amount within a period of 15 days of E-auction sale that would expire on 22.04.2016. In such circumstances, this Court observed that it is up to the petitioner to deposit the balance 75% amount by 27.04.2016, whereupon the respondent Bank would issue sale certificate without any delay.

(3.) Now the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application alleging that E-auction sale held on 07.04.2016 in respect of the same property, has been undertaken on a misrepresentation by the respondent Bank as no sale of the leasehold property can be executed by the respondent Bank. Property in question stands leased out to one Bijay Kumar Pandey in tripartite lease deed executed on 02.09.2005 with the Jharkhand State Housing Board. The lease period is of 90 years after deducting the period of lease already enjoyed by the third party in the lease deed namely, Manoj Bihari Sinha, the original allottee. The property therefore, could not have been auction sold without consent of the Jharkhand State Housing Board.