Mandatory SARFAESI sale notice period breached, making the e-auction invalid despite an alternative remedy.

Alternative statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act does not bar a writ petition where the challenge alleges violation of mandatory statutory procedure, so Article 226 review was treated as maintainable. The SARFAESI Rules require a clear 30 days' notice before sale of immovable secured assets, and that interval must be computed strictly without counting the publication date or the sale date. As the sale notice was published on 13.02.2016 and the auction was held on 14.03.2016, the mandatory gap was not satisfied. The e-auction was therefore held invalid, the sale was set aside, and the matter was allowed to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the e-auction sale was invalid for want of a clear 30 days notice under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: Availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar where the challenge is founded on alleged violation of mandatory statutory procedure. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in exceptional cases, particularly where the action complained of is contrary to the statute and its rules. The Court treated the grievance as one involving alleged breach of the prescribed SARFAESI procedure and therefore fit for writ scrutiny.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the e-auction sale was invalid for want of a clear 30 days notice under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

Analysis: Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) require a notice period of thirty clear days before sale of immovable secured assets. Reading the Rules with Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the governing principles on exclusion of time, the date of publication and the date of sale cannot be counted so as to dilute the mandatory interval. Since the sale notice was published on 13.02.2016 and the auction was held on 14.03.2016, the mandatory clear 30 days gap was not satisfied. Non-compliance with this statutory safeguard vitiates the sale.

Conclusion: The e-auction sale was invalid and liable to be declared null and void.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the auction sale was set aside, refund to the auction purchaser was directed with interest, and the secured creditor was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the SARFAESI Rules prescribe a clear 30 days notice before sale of immovable secured assets, compliance is mandatory and any sale held without satisfying that interval is void; the writ court may interfere notwithstanding an alternative remedy when the challenge is to violation of such mandatory statutory procedure.

---