Sale proclamation and interest waiver issues required resolution before auction of the property could proceed.

Where an earlier notice had already initiated settlement of the sale proclamation, a later proclamation could not validly extend to the petitioner's property until the earlier process was settled. The property therefore could not be auctioned on the basis of the later notice. A pending application seeking waiver of interest also had to be decided before auction, so that recovery proceedings could move forward after consideration of that claim. The practical effect was a temporary restraint on the impugned auction steps, with liberty for the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law after settling the proclamation and deciding the waiver request.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proclamation dated 12 March 1997 could operate against the petitioner's property and permit its auction when an earlier notice for settlement of sale proclamation had already been issued to the petitioner. (ii) Whether the pending application for waiver of interest was required to be decided before the property was put to auction.

Issue (i): Whether the proclamation dated 12 March 1997 could operate against the petitioner's property and permit its auction when an earlier notice for settlement of sale proclamation had already been issued to the petitioner.

Analysis: The earlier notice dated 4 February 1997 had already put the petitioner to notice for settlement of the sale proclamation, including fixation of the terms and conditions on 31 March 1997. In these circumstances, inclusion of the petitioner's property in the proclamation dated 12 March 1997 was not sustainable until the earlier proclamation process was duly settled.

Conclusion: The proclamation dated 12 March 1997 could not be allowed to operate against the petitioner's property, and the property could not be auctioned pursuant to that notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the pending application for waiver of interest was required to be decided before the property was put to auction.

Analysis: Since the petitioner had sought waiver of interest, the request was treated as a matter that should be decided before the proposed auction so that the recovery process could proceed after consideration of the pending claim.

Conclusion: The waiver application had to be decided before the date of auction.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the impugned auction steps against the petitioner's property were restrained for the time being, and the authorities were permitted to proceed afresh in accordance with law after settling the proclamation and deciding the waiver application.

---