"15. It is true that the petitioners did not make any specific allegation in their writ affidavit in relation to violation of the mandatory provisions ofihe Rules of 2002 and more particularly, Rules 8(6) and 9(1) thereof in the context of the amended section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. However, when a scheduled bank seeks to exercise the extraordinary and far-reaching power vesting in it under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed tiiereunder, it must necessarily abide by and obey the due procedure prescribed thereunder. This court, being the sentinel on the qui vive, would be quick to react in the event a secured creditor, such as the bank, seeks to exercise such power in violation ofthe mandatory procedure. Be it noted that a secured creditor, by virtue of the powers created by and vesting in it under the SARFAESI Act, is empowered to dispense with the ordinary legal process of taking recourse to the comietent civil Court for foreclosure and unilaterally bring the secured/mortgaged """Lt" to sale by simply adhering to the procedure prescribed thereunder. In the event a secured crediioi fails to follow such binding procedure, it would adversely impact the borrowers right. _topropertvunder Articre 3o0A of the ctnstitution. Therefore, notwithstanding the f":l tlut the writ petitioners did not sfecificalry .aise a ground in this regard, this court is entitled, nay, bound to exai-ine as to whether the bank followed the due procedure -tit. i""ri.s th. "rtl*Jirr'qr..tion. Merely because sufficient preading is "oi p"t io.iii i"_r,o ground for a constitutional court to condone or turn a blind eye to p"i."tlif'.gfity.
