sale notices published by the Respondent No.10. He states that in the fifth pre-sale notice also it was only the Petitioner who made an attempt to buy the property in question. He states that by the time the order was passed by the DRT in IA No.12/2019 on 07.01.2019, the banking hours were over and the Petitioner gave a cheque of Rs.2 crores as earnest money deposit to the authorized officer of Respondent No.10 along with a letter explaining his inability to deposit Rs.2 crores by way of demand draft. He states that the cheque given by the Petitioner herein was accepted by the authorized officer of Respondent No.10. He states that the Petitioner undertook to replace the cheque with a demand draft on the next day, i.e. 08.01.2019. However, on 08.01.2019 & 09.01.2019 there was a strike in the banks and no banking operations could take place and the Petitioner was unable to replace the cheque with the demand draft. He states that the Petitioner wrote a letter dated 08.01.2019 to the authorized officer of the Respondent No.10 requesting him to permit the Petitioner to deposit the demand draft on 10.01.2019 when the banking operations were expected to resume and the Authorized Officer of the Respondent No.10 accepted the request of the Petitioner and permitted the Petitioner to participate in the auction, which was to be held on 09.01.2019. He states that the Petitioner participated in the auction and was declared successful. He states that the Petitioner deposited Rs.4,96,25,000/-, being 25% of the reserve price, to the Respondent No.10 by way of RTGS transfer on 10.01.2019. He draws the attention of this Court to Rule 9(3) of the Security Rules to contend that the said Rules stipulates that the purchaser shall immediately, i.e. on the same day or on the next working day, shall deposit 25% of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of the earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorized officer
