Fair secured-asset sale required fresh publicity and transparency; long delay and stale tender justified setting aside the sale.

A writ challenge to a secured-asset sale need not be rejected for alternate remedy where the petition was already admitted, protected by interim order, and left pending until the statutory appeal period expired. The High Court may then examine the dispute on merits. The sale was also liable to be set aside because the process lacked fairness and transparency: no fresh publicity or tenders were issued after a long delay, the sale proceeded on an old sole tender, and disclosure was not prompt. Equitable relief was preserved by conditioning interference on compensation to the auction purchaser.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ court should decline interference on the ground of alternate remedy after the writ petition had been entertained and kept pending beyond the period for pursuing the statutory appeal; (ii) whether the sale of the secured asset under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was vitiated for want of fairness, proper notice, and fresh tendering, warranting setting aside of the sale subject to compensation to the auction purchaser.

Issue (i): Whether the writ court should decline interference on the ground of alternate remedy after the writ petition had been entertained and kept pending beyond the period for pursuing the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The writ petition had been admitted and protected by interim order, and the matter remained pending for a long period until the time for availing the alternative statutory remedy had expired. In such circumstances, it would be unjust to relegate the aggrieved party to an alternate remedy. The availability of an alternative remedy does not fetter the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction where the facts justify interference, especially when the delay in disposal has itself extinguished the alternate remedy.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant, and the matter was required to be examined on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale of the secured asset under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was vitiated for want of fairness, proper notice, and fresh tendering, warranting setting aside of the sale subject to compensation to the auction purchaser.

Analysis: A sale of secured property must be conducted fairly and reasonably so that the asset fetches the best possible price and the borrower or guarantor is not prejudiced by a stale or clandestine process. The Bank did not promptly conduct the sale within the period granted by the earlier order, did not issue fresh publicity or invite fresh tenders despite the passage of a long time, and proceeded on the basis of an old sole tender in circumstances suggesting that the market value may have substantially increased. The sale was also not promptly disclosed to the appellant. These lapses justified interference, though the purchaser had already paid the consideration and incurred expenses, making compensatory adjustment necessary.

Conclusion: The sale was held liable to be set aside, but only on condition of payment of compensation to the purchaser.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal succeeded in substance because the sale was invalidated for unfair conduct, while balancing the equities by protecting the purchaser through a monetary condition and consequential directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a writ petition challenging a secured-asset sale has been entertained and kept pending until the statutory appeal becomes unavailable, the High Court may decide the challenge on merits; and a secured-asset sale conducted without fresh publicity or fair opportunity after long delay can be set aside if it fails the requirement of a fair, reasonable, and transparent sale process.

---