1 / 4 2025:CGHC:8098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 917 of 2025 1 - Neeraj Kumar Rathore S/o. Shri Khem Prakash Rathore Aged About 25 Years Working As Student, R/o. Gudi Chowk, Dumarpara, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Bank Of India (S.B.I.) Through Regional Manager, Regional Business Office (R.B.O.), Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - The State Bank Of India Through The Chief Manager (Credit), Regional Business Office, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The State Bank Of India Through The Branch Manager, Nayapara, Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The District Magistrate/Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Behar, Advocate For Respondents/Bank : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate 2 / 4 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 17/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the communication dated 28/01/2025 (Annexure P/6) issued by respondent No.2 by which the respondent Bank has decided not to sell the property which was decided to be sold to the present petitioner by sale intimation letter dated 05/08/2023 (Annexure P/2). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though there is a provision of deposit 25% of the auction amount but the petitioner has deposited 10% of the same however, the impugned communication has been issued on 28/01/2025 by saying that there is statutory provision that 25% of the sale amount is to be deposited on the same day or next working day and the maximum permissible period for deposit of balance 75% is 90 days and as the petitioner only deposited 10% of the sale price initially, for depositing the remaining amount with inordinate delay is not legally permitted. He further submits that before cancelling the sale offer, the respondent Bank has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner alhough the cancellation communication has communicated to the petitioner after more than 17 months. He would further submit that when the petitioner was approaching the bank they have assured the petitioner orally that the issue will be settled, however without giving any opportunity of hearing and without seeking any explanation, the 3 / 4 sale offer/ intimation letter has been cancelled by deciding to cancel the sale intimation letter pursuance to the auction held on 05/08/2023. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the provision of Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short, “the Rules, 2002) specifically prescribed that 25% of the sale price is to be deposited on the same day or next working day and the maximum permissible period for deposit of balance 75% is 90 days however, the petitioner initially deposited only 10% of the sale price only, for which the bank did not permit the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount with inordinate delay that is beyond the limit prescribed under the Rules, 2002. He further submits that there is no illegality in the decision of cancelling the purchase offer of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the impugned communication (Annexure P/6). 5. From perusal of communication dated 28/01/2025 (Annexure P/6), it appears that the bank has taken a decision not to permit the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount as the period prescribed under the Rules, 2002 was already expired and the petitioner was failed to deposit the same within the stipulated time limit. 6. As per the pleadings and submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was assured by the bank to settle the dispute and on the said assurance, the petitioner was waiting for the instruction of the bank. 4 / 4 7. In view of the above and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the respondents/ Bank is directed to take a fresh decision about the cancellation of the sale intimation letter dated 05/08/2023 (Annexure P/2) issued to the petitioner by providing opportunity of hearing to him. It is further directed that the bank shall issue a notice to the petitioner within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on issuance of such notice, the petitioner is directed to explain and reply the said notice and thereafter, the bank shall take a decision by considering the reply of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of reply submitted by the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar