HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34393 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief : "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to allow One Time Settlement as proposed by the petitioner in his application dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the impugned auction sale for records and quashing the order dated 16.09.2025 in favour of the respondent no.3 by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.12 to writ petition)." 3. At the outset, Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner states, the "secured asset" has been auctioned on 16.09.2025 on the bid amount Rs. 3,16,00,000/- 4. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the bank has acted arbitrarily and even with mala fides inasmuch as the petitioner had offered to arrange for a higher sale through negotiated sale. That request was not acceded. The petitioner also applied for OTS before auction proceedings were held. Even that was not considered.Third, auction purchaser has not deposited the necessary amount in accordance with law. Therefore, interference is warranted in the present counts. Alternatively, it has been submitted, the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire amount. 5. Having heard leaned counsel for the parties and having perused the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Satish Chaturvedi M/S Daurli Ispat Private Limited .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) record, the law is sell settled - once the auction notice is issued, interference on merits may never be warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in proceedings arising from SARFAESI Act, 2002. Here, not only auction notice has been published but the sale has been concluded on 16.09.2025. Whatever grievance the petitioner has, it may remain open to him to raise before the statutory forum. 6. Leaving that course open to the petitioner, interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. October 10, 2025 Abhilash WRIC No. 34393 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad