JUDGMENT Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they are inter-related. Writ Petition No. 15293 of 1986 is directed against the refusal of the U.P. Financial Corporation to release the undisbursed loan amounting to Rs. 66,079.96. Writ Petition No. 17925 of 1986, on the other hand, is directed against the action initiated by the Financial Corporation under S. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act in the purported exercise of its powers to recover its dues on the allegation that the petitioner had committed several defaults in the repayment of the loan. 2. The Financial Corporation has filed counter-affidavit in both the petitions and has controvered the various assertions made by the petitioner holding the Financial Corporation responsible for its (petitioner's) inability to comply with its obligations under the agreement. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Financial Corporation, We find no merit in either of these two petitions. The first contention rasied by the petitioner in support of writ petition No. 15293 of 1986 is that the refusal of the Financial Corporation to pay the undisbursed loan to the petitioner is arbitrary and wholly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is alleged by the petitioner that it was on account of the failure of the Financial Corporation to advance additional loan as requested by him which resulted in the agreement not working out in the way it was intended to be. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Financial Corporation it has been asserted that loan was sanctioned for Rs. 5,41,000/- The margin of security was 20% which the petitioner was, under the agreement, liable to contribute. However, on account' of the failure of the petitioner to complete the constructions within time, the security furnished by the petitioner or which was created at the spot was rendered inadequate. It was on account of this circumstances that the Financial Corporation was obliged to take the impugned action, namely, to cancel the remaining loan. 5. We are of the opinion that the ground on which the petitioner's loan was cancelled namely, the inadequacy of the security was valid and proper. At any rate, the ground cannot be characterised as arbitrary or unjustified. 5. We are of the opinion that the ground on which the petitioner's loan was cancelled namely, the inadequacy of the security was valid and proper. At any rate, the ground cannot be characterised as arbitrary or unjustified. The allegation of the petitioner that bills were not retired by the Financial Corporation on due dates has also been controverted by the Financial Corporation in the said counter-affidavit. It has been asserted that all the bills submitted by the petitioner for retirement from the various banks were duly attended by the Financial Corporation. There is, therefore. no substance in the first petition. 6. Coming to the second petition, the allegation of the Financial Corporation is that the petitioner was guilty of several defaults and consequently the Financial' Corporation had no option but to call up the loan and to take the impugned action under S. 29 of the Act. These assertions have been made by a responsible officer of the Financial Corporation and are based on facts and figures and the same cannot be dismissed as unreliable. According to the agreement itself, the Financial Corporation was entitled to recover its dues on the petitioner's committing breach of the terms thereof. The action taken by the Financial Corporation under S. 29 in the facts and circumstances of the present case seems entirely unexceptionable and no ground has been made out for interfering with the same. This petition, therefore, is also liable to fail. 7. In the end, the petitioner's counsel pressed the application dated Aug. 20, 1987 in which a request has been made for appointment of a commissioner to inspect the unit for assessing the value of the assets thereof so that the unit may not be sold or otherwise transferred for an excessively low consideration under S. 29 of the Act. 8. We are not satisfied that any ground for appointment of a commissioner has been made out. We must, however, observe that the Financial Corporation being an instrumentality of the State, the least that is expected of it is that it will not sell or lease out the u nit for consideration which does not bear a proper relation to the true value of the assets thereof. 9. With these observations both the petitions are dismissed. The interim orders, if any, are - hereby vacated.