S. G. DODDAKALE GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) 1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of section 29 of the State Finance corporation Act 1951 (Central Act 63 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as ultra vires ; confers unguided and unbriddled power on Corporation to deprive possession of the property by a debtor and more ownerous than the normal procedure prescribed for recovery of a debt. ( 2 ) SECTION 29 (1) reads thus :-"rights of Financial Corporation in case of default- (1) Where any industrial concern, which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under an agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, the financial Corporation shall have the right to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concern, as well as the right to transfer by way of lease or sale and realise the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation " ( 3 ) TWO objects intended to be achieved are (i) to take possession of the property for realisation of debt out of rents/profits/proceeds and (ii) to sell the property to realise the debt. Firstly, such rights are analogous to various rights of a mortgagee as are conferred under the Transfer of Property act Simple mortgagee has a right to bing the property for sale ; usufructuary mortgagee has got right to retain possession till payment of mortgaged money and to receive rents and profits accrued from the property and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest or partly in payment of mortgaged money; ananamolous mortgagee can sue either for fcreclosure of the rights of the mortgagee or bring the property for sale depending upon the terms and conditions of the deed. Under section 69 of the T. P. Act the mortgagee has right to sell the mortgaged property without the intervention of the Court for realisation of his debts, under certain circumstances. Under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act if the mortgagee is Governmert and terms of deed provide for sale without intervention, the mortgagee has got a right to sell. Under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act if the mortgagee is Governmert and terms of deed provide for sale without intervention, the mortgagee has got a right to sell. ( 4 ) THE Act has provided special forums for recovery of the amount advanced-vide sections 29, 31 and 31 G. The remedy of a mortgagee provided under section 69 of the Transfer of Property act is incoiporaied into this section, which in turn has incorporated the provisions of Trustee's and mortgagee's powtrs Act, 1886 and the English Property Act, 1925. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, the validity of the impugned provision has to be examined with reference to the special features (schemes and object) of the Act, State corporation is constituted as a special statutory agency to advance loan and to give financial assistance. . . . . . . . medium and long term basis. . . . . . . . to industrial undertakings which fall outside the normal activities of a commercial bank. Act has conferred 'special privileges in the matter of enforcement of its claims against re. covery of dues in order to protect its interest' and to avoid delay likely to be caused, if resorted to, normal course, the Board constituted for the purpose is expected to discharge its function on business principle due regard being had to the interest of an industry, commercial and general public-vide section 24. Section 29 confers right on Corporation to take possession of the property mortgaged, pledged etc. , in the interest of industry and corporation, in case of default. Delay if any, may frustrate the mode of realisation as machinery is subjected to decay etc. Under section 31, the Corporation may apply to the District judge within whose jurisdiction the industrial concern carries on the whole or substantial part of its business (a) for an order for the sale of property pledged, mortgaged or hypothecated as security for the loan or advance, (b) for enforcing the liability for any surety, (c) for transferring the management of the industrial concern to the financial corporation, and (d) for an interim injunction restraining the concern from transferring or removing its machinery etc. Section 32-G provides for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. The Board is expected to resort to these provisions depending upon the exigency. Section 32-G provides for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. The Board is expected to resort to these provisions depending upon the exigency. Section 46-B states that the provisions of the Act and the Rules or Orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The various provisions contained in the Act establish sufficient guidelines for resorting to the recovery of money advanced by it by resorting of one or other mode or method, bearing in mind sections 23 and 24 of the Act. The difference bet- i ween Sections 29 and 31 is that possession is secured through court under section 31 ; whereas possession is secured under section 29 without intervention of the Court. This court while upholding the validity of Section 31 in Shreeshyla crowns and Screws Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India (A. I. R. 1983 Karnataka 130) has held thus :-" (65 ). The first and the foremost principle, that emerges from the rulings of the Supreme Court, in particular from maganlal Chhagganlal's and Deep chan agarwal's cases is that a special and speedier procedure can be provided for speedy recovery of State dues and that the same will satisfy the twin test of permissible classification under Article 14 of the Constitution. The second principle is whether the Act or provisions contain sufficient guidelines for the exercise of power by authority. "this conclusion was rested on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maganlal chhagganlal (P) Ltd. v Greater Bombay municipality (A. I R. 1974 SC 2009) which in turn states thus :-"where a statute providing for a more drastic procedure different from the ordinary procedure covers the whole field covered by the ordinary procedure, as in Anwar AM Sarkar's case 1952 SCR 284 : AIR 1952 SC 75 and Suraj Mall mohtas case (1955) 1 SCR 448 : AIR 1954 SC 545 without any guidelines as to the class of cases in which either procedure is to be resorted to, the statute will be hit by Article 14. Even there, as mentioned in Suraj Mall mohta's case, a provision for appeal may cure the defect. Even there, as mentioned in Suraj Mall mohta's case, a provision for appeal may cure the defect. Further, in such cases if from the preamble and surrounding circumstances, as well as the provisions of the statute themselves explained and amplified by affidavits, necessary guidelines could be inferred as in Saurashtra case 1952 SCR 435 : air 1952 SC 123 and Jyoti Pershad's case (1962) 2 SCR 125 : AIR 1961 SC 1602 the statute will not be hit by article 14 Then again where the statute itself covered only a class of cases as in Haldar's case (1960) 2 SCR 646 : AIR 1960 SC 457 and Bajoria's case 1954 SCR 30 : AIR 1953 SC 404 the statute will not be bad. The fact that in such cases the executive will choose which cases are to be tried under the special procedure will not affect the validity of the statute. Therefore, the contention that the mere availability of two procedures will vitiate one of them, that is the special procedure, is not supported by reason of authority. "andhra Pradesh High Court in srinivasa Kandasari Sugars v State (AIR 1976 A. P. 93) and Kerala High Court in k Surendranathan v Kerala Financial corpn. (AIR 1988 Kar. 330) have upheld the validity of section 29. ( 6 ) FOR the query of the Court as to what are the remedies of a simple mortgagee and usufructuary mortgagee, sri Veerabhadrappa, learned Advocate, submitted that a simple mortgagee can seek sale of mortgaged property for realisation of the debt. So also, the usufructuary mortgagee in addition to the right of appropriation of the income either towards interest or partly towards interest and principal has to file a suit for sale of the mortgaged property in order to realise the mortgage debt. Lastly, he submitted that power to seise possession, without intervention of the court, deprives the right of a debtor for possession and thus offends Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300a of the Constitution of india. This submission is equally fallacious. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above this writ petition is dismissed. Writ Petition Dismissed. --- *** --- .