JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner firm, of which Om Prakash is the Proprietor, applied for a loan of Rs. 1,35,000/-for manufacturing plastic bangle rolls to the non-petitioner, the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short 'the Corporation' here in after) and was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,27,000/-. On March 19, 1981, the petitioner entered into an agreement for hypothecation with the Corporation. That, the factory was got ready for the purpose of production in, the month of September, 1981. The petitioner further made a demand of an additional loan for a sum of Rs. 73,000/- out of which, Rs. 52.000/- was sanctioned and the petitioner availed dispersement to the tune of Rs. 31,000/- in the month of October 1982 The petitioner could not repay the loan and consequently notice under Section 29/30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act' here in after) was issued by the Corporation. The application of the petitioner for rehabilitation was not considered. The Corporation failing to realise the amount proceeded under Section 29 of the Act and took-over the management of the factory. 2. It caused grievance to the petitioner and be has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that notice Annexure-13 informing the petitioner about taking-over the assets under Section 29 of the Act and Annexure-14, the sale proclamation of the factory may be quashed and in accordance with the rehabilitating programme issued by the Industrial Development Bank of India the possession of the factory may be handed over to the petitioner and re-schedulement of that debt be made. 3. The case of the petitioner is that despite best efforts the factory under went loss and therefore it was not possible for the petitioner to repay the loan. That, the Corporation had come to the help of other sick Industries by providing rehabilitation facility and in certain cases by re-schedulement of the debt. 4. The constitutional validity, of Section 29 of the Act has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner should first proceed under Section 31 of the Act. 5. According to Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, proceedings under Section 29 are very harsh because that Section vests discretion with the authorities to exercise any of, the powers mentioned in that Section. 6. Mr. 5. According to Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, proceedings under Section 29 are very harsh because that Section vests discretion with the authorities to exercise any of, the powers mentioned in that Section. 6. Mr. N.M. Lodha placed reliance on that principle enunciated in the case of M/s Hotel Ajaymeru Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/85 decided on 15th September, 1985) and submitted that the question of Constitutional validity of Section 29 of the Act has been decided in that case by the Court and therefore, argument on that ground is not available to the petitioner. 7. In the above referred case, the question of Constitutional validity of Section 29 of the Act was raised. After discussing in detail the provisions of Sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Act and referring to the relevant authorities on the point, the learned Judge held that in cannot be said that arbitrary and uncanalised discretion has been conferred on the Financial Corporation in the matter of exercise of its .powers under Section 29 of the Act. 8. I am in respectful agreement with the finding of the learned Judge on the point. 9. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the Court declines to enter into the question of the validity of Section 29 of the Act in view of the aforesaid decision, there is yet another ground available to the petitioner for relief. 10. Mr. Singhvi, submitted that the Corporation has granted a loan for the assistance, for modernisation of Industrial Units. Reference has been made to Annexure--16 where in dealing with the scope and objective of scheme it has been mentioned that it includes replacement or renovation of plant and machinery or acquisition of balancing equipment for fuller and more effective utilisation of installed capacity. 11. Mr. Singhvi, submitted that when many of the Industries to whom loan has been advanced by the Corporation were running under loss, the Corporation should have provided rehabilitation and re-schedulement facility to them instead of taking a drastic step, in taking the management in its band under Section 29 of the Act. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Singhvi placed reliance on the principle enunciated in the case of Shashi Kumar and Ors. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Singhvi placed reliance on the principle enunciated in the case of Shashi Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1986 (1) SCC 64 , wherein loans to enter Dreneurs were given under the Government Scheme for unemployed engineers for setting up Agro Service Centres with financial assistance from banks. The Scheme failed in Bihar for various reasons consequently banks claimed repayment of loans advanced and interest thereon. Entrepreneurs filed writ petitions in High Court but did not succeed. On appeal, the Supreme Court permitted the banks to protect themselves by instituting suits for recovery of the loan amounts alleged to be due but stayed the proceedings in the suits and also directed Government of India to re formulate the scheme after consultation with all parties concerned and submit its report the Court for appropriate order within the time granted for the purpose. 12. The facts of the present case are altogether different. Here it is not the Scheme as a whole which has failed. It is the petitioner and the some other factories, if its version is taken to be true are said to have not profited out of the business they started with help of the loan. 13. It is pertinent to note that a prayer of the additional demand made by the petitioner was satisfied by the Corporation and additional loan was given. 14. The initial loan under the Scheme was granted in the year 1981 and sufficient time was granted to the petitioner, despite notices being issued for taking action. It was after a number of years, as evident from Annexure-13 dated October 31, 1985 that in view of the amount of loan being Rs. 1,91,519/-remaining outstanding that the Corporation decided to proceed under Section 29 of the Act and on October 30, 1985 tookover the possession of the assets of the petitioner's unit and locked the factory. Not only that, even at the time of the commencement of the arguments, Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Counsel for the Corporation made an offer that he would advise his client not to take further action under Section 29 of the Act and release the factory if the petitioner was prepared to deposit some amount, be it Rs. 20,000/- or even a little less than that. Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Counsel for the Corporation made an offer that he would advise his client not to take further action under Section 29 of the Act and release the factory if the petitioner was prepared to deposit some amount, be it Rs. 20,000/- or even a little less than that. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time to seek instructions and then frankly conceeded that the petitioner is not in a position to make any payment at present. 15. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner for providing rehabilitation and re-schedulement also cannot be considered and no relief can be granted. 16. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs are made easy.Writ dismissed. *******