Bhagwan Din, J.:— The petitioner set up an Industry in the name and style of ‘Pushp Engineering Works’ in the Industrial Estate, Etah which was registered under the Industries Act. At the request of the petitioner, the U.P Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,97,000/- on 12-1-1989. The terms and conditions of the loan and the manner of repayment of the loan are contained in the agreement and hypothecation deed executed by the petitioner. Lateron the proposal of the loan was cancelled to the extent of Rs. 81,000 for want of adequate security and requisite papers, namely, registration certificate and Chartered Accountant's certificate etc. Thus an amount of Rs. 4,16,000/- only was disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner did not make any payment as stipulated in the agreement and hypothecation deed whereupon the Corporation took steps on 1-2-1993 to take over the unit under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,72,824/-. The officers of the Corporation inspected the unit and found that the plant and machinery of the unit was removed by the petitioner from the mortgaged site. Therefore, the Corporation lodged a report on 17-12-1993 with the local police. On 16-11-1995 the possession of the unit was taken over by the Corporation. Before the Corporation took the possession of the unit, it once inspected the unit and found that the petitioner had removed certain more assets from the site. Therefore, the Corporation lodged another report on 31-1-1996. The Corporation by a public notice invited persons interested to purchase the assets of the unit disclosed therein. The respondent No. 3, on coming to know about the taking over the possession of the unit for disposal by sale, offered to purchase the unit for Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Corporation did not accept the offer as such and issued a tender notice by advertisement in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ on 24-3-1996. In pursuance thereof, one Ram Narain Misra, the owner of Ganga Machinery Works offered Rs. 4,35,000/- as cost of the unit. The offer as such was approved on 6-4-1996. In the meantime, the petitioner contacted the authorities of the Corporation at Head Quarter and made a proposal of one time settlement. The Corporation through a telegram informed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- latest by 13-5-1996 positively, if he was interested in his O.T.S proposal. The petitioner did not react to the call of the Corporation. The Corporation, therefore, considered that the petitioner was not really interested for settlement. So also Ram Narain Misra, the owner of Ganga Machinery Works disappeared. Seemingly no option was left with the Corporation except to call the respondent No. 3 for negotiation so as to reach to the level of Rs. 5,75,824/- which was due against the petitioner. Ultimately, a negotiation was arrived at for Rs. 4,75,000/-. The petitioner instead of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- under the O.T.S scheme, filed a writ petition No. 18430 of 1996 and sought relief that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents (General Manager, Regional Manager, Corporation and General Manager (Industries), Etah) to give a proposal demanding ¼ of the total loan plus 50% of the simple interest accrued on it, in four equal six monthly instalments for bringing the Industry of the petitioner under O.T.S Scheme and also to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding them to restore the possession of the Industry to him. The relief sought was grounded on the claims that the telegram did not specify or indicate that in case the amount will be deposited, the Industry will be brought under O.T.S Scheme. Therefore, depositing of the said amount on the basis of the telegram will prejudice the interest of the petitioner, that the amount demanded by the Corporation was excessive, the petitioner may be asked to deposit Rs. 1,35,000/- only. So also no reasonable time was granted to him to deposit the said amount. The Court, by an interim order dated 23-5-1996, directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/-. The petitioner did not deposit the money even after the order of the Court, hence the Corporation had no option except to approve the offer made by the respondent No. 3 and sell the unit in his favour. The Corporation sold the unit in favour of the respondent No. 3 and handed over possession thereof. Thus the chapter was finally closed.

2. Baffled petitioner refused to lose the battle and once again tried his luck by means of this petition on the plea that the papers having been sent to the Collector for necessary recovery by public auction, the sale of the factory by private negotiation to respondent No. 3 is, therefore, against the law, discriminatory and arbitrary, that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to challenge the sale proceedings by auction and save his factory by depositing the dues and that the factory has been sold grossly for a low amount whereas the assets of the factory were more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and the offer of the respondent No. 3 was only for Rs. 4,75,000/-. It is prayed that the respondents may be directed to cancel the sale of the factory which has been done by private negotiation and the Corporation be directed to send the papers to the Collector for recovery of its dues by public auction. The respondent No. 3 promptly filed a counter-affidavit. The contents and contours of the counter-affidavit are that the Corporation very fairly with all bona fides acted in strict compliance of the provisions of the Act. The Corporation gave opportunity to the petitioner to enter into O.T.S Scheme but it backed out and not even honour the order of the Court made in the writ petition No. 18430 of 1996. The Corporation, therefore, approved the offer of the respondent No. 3 and transferred the possession of the unit to him.

3. The parties' counsel consented for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage.

4. We have heard Sri Dhan Prakash, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at length and in detail. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner dropped first part of the ground No. 1 to the extent that the recovery papers having been sent to the Collector for necessary recovery by auction and also deleted the last part of the relief claiming that the respondent No. 1 be directed to send the papers to the Collector for recovery by public auction. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is confined to the extent that the respondent No. 1 has acted under Section 29 of the Act in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P Financial Corporation, (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 279 : (AIR 1993 SC 935). The guidelines, delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-22 of the judgment are as below:—

“Keeping these various factors giving rise to conflicting interest the following directions are necessary to be issued to be observed by the Corporation while exercising power under Section 29:

Every endeavour should be made, to make the unit viable and be put in working condition. It is becomes unworkable:

(1) Sale of a unit should always be made by public auction.

(2) Valuation of a unit for purposes of determining adequacy of offer or for determining if bid offered was adequate, should always be intimated to the unit holder to enable him to file objection if any as he is vitally interested in getting the maximum price.

(3) If tenders are invited then the highest price on which tender is to be accepted must be intimated to the unit holder.

(4)(a) If unit holder is willing to offer the sale price, as the tenderer, then he should be offered same facility and unit should be transferred to him. And the arrears remaining thereafter should be rescheduled to be recovered in instalments with interest after the payment of last instalment fixed under the agreement entered into as a result of tendered amount.

(b) If he brings third parties with higher offer it would be tested and may be accepted.

(5) Sale by private negotiation should be permitted only in very large concerns where investment runs in very huge amount for which ordinary buyer may not be available or the industry itself may be of such nature that normal buyers may not be available. But before taking such steps there should be advertisements not only in daily newspapers but business magazines and papers.

(6) Request of the unit holder to release any part of the property on which the concern is not standing of which he is the owner should normally be granted on condition that sale proceeds shall be deposited in loan account.”

5. The submission of the counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is that a public notice was issued by the Corporation inviting interested persons to offer adequate amount as a consideration for sale of the unit. In pursuance to such tender notice, the respondent No. 3 offered Rs. 4,00,000/- as the cost of the petitioner's unit. The amount as such was not considered adequate, therefore, on 24-3-1996, an advertisement was published in daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ that all the assets of Pushp Engineering Works situated on the plot Nos. 22, 23 and 24 in Industrial Estate, Etah shall be available for sale by the Corporation under Section-29 of the Act. The highest offer received was Rs. 4,00,000/-. The interested purchasers may offer more than this amount within seven days. The petitioner did not come forward to make payment towards the discharge of the loan. The petitioner, however, offered him under O.T.S Scheme which was accepted by the Corporation but lateron he resiled to fulfil the requirement. He has further urged that in the case of Mahesh Chandra's case (supra) there were some laches on the part of the Corporation and also that the indebted company had been all along ready to repay the loan and also to meet the requirements and fulfil terms and conditions of agreement and hypothecation. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, keeping various factors in the case giving rise to the controversy, issued directions. According to him the directions, issued as such, could not be considered as guidelines to be strictly observed in other matters which are set up differently. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the case in hand is not similarly footed, therefore, the directions, contained in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra) are not attracted to it. The submission of the learned counsel gain support from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case of U.P Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. ((1993) 2 SCC 299 : AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1435). In that case the respondent company did not make any payment as stipulated in the agreement, in the result, the Corporation took steps to take over the unit under Section 29 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed therein as under:—

“The relationship between the Corporation and the borrower is that of creditor and debtor. The Corporation is not supposed to give loans once and go out of business. It has also to recover them so that it can give fresh loans to others. The Corporation no doubt has to act within the four corners of the Act and in furtherance of the object underlying the Act. But this factor cannot be carried to the extent of obligating the Corporation to revive and resurrect every sick industry irrespective of the cost involved. Promoting industrialisation at the cost of public funds does not serve the public interest; it merely amounts to transferring public money to private account. The fairness required of the Corporation cannot be carried to the extent of disabling it from recovering what is due to it. While not insisting upon the borrower to honour the commitments undertaken by him, the Corporation alone cannot be shackled hand and foot in the name of fairness. Fairness is not a one way street, more particularly in matters like the present one.”

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further has held in U.P Financial Corporation case (supra) as under (at page 1440; of AIR):—

“On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P Financial Corporation, (1992) 2 JT 326 : 1992 All LJ 1202 : ((1993) 2 SCC 279 : AIR 1993 SC 935). We have perused the decision. That was a case where the debtor was anxious to pay off the debt and had been taking several steps to discharge his obligation. On the facts of that particular case it was found that the Corporation was acting reasonably. In that context certain observations were made. The decision also deals with the procedure to be adopted by the Corporation while selling the units taken over under Section 29. That aspect is not relevant in this case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the said decision is of no help to the appellant herein.”

7. On the above context the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in U.P Financial Corporation v. Naini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Ltd., (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 754 : (1995 AIR SCW 254) shall be of greater assistance in arriving at the correct decision in the matter in hand. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has very clearly held as under (at page 262; of AIR SCW):

“We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Corporation is an independent autonomous statutory body having its own constitution and rules to abide by and functions and obligations to discharge. As such, in the discharge of its functions, it is free to act according to its own light. The views it forms and the decisions it takes are on the basis of the information in its possession and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculations. Unless its action is mala fide even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the Courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however more prudent, commercial or business like it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or the lack of it) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the Corporation liable.”

8. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties and taking into account the indubitable facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra) were in view of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the conflicting interest between the parties which could not be considered to be the guidelines to be observed in all cases even though not similarly situated.

9. In the instant case the petitioner had never showed his intention to pay any part of the debt. He has been merely putting forward one or the other ploy to keep the Corporation at bay. Approaching the Courts through successive writ petitions is but a part of this game.

10. Of course the administrative authorities are under obligation to act fairly to ensure the compliance of the rule and law to prevent failure of justice. The Corporation in the case in hand has acted fairly as we have stated above, by complying with the provisions of the Act and offered every opportunity to the petitioner to discharge the obligation but nothing has come from the side of the petitioner.

11. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the Corporation, respondent No. 1, issued notice and took steps to take over possession over the unit and also sold the unit in favour of the respondent No. 3 and handed over possession in colourable exercise of its authority and also with mala fide intention.

12. The petitioner could also not bring such facts and circumstances to the notice of the Court that the Corporation has not acted fairly and with all bona fides. Hence, we are of the definite opinion that the Corporation has acted fairly with all bona fides and, therefore, the petition is without merits and deserves to be dismissed.

13. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.

14. Petition dismissed.