CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter is identical in the matter of questions of law as well as questions of fact with the case of Laxminarayana Tile works (W P. No. 21766/1989 disposed of by me on 4-1-1990 ). ( 2 ) I have held therein that the plenary powers given to the respondent, the State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) under Sec. 29 of the State financial Corporations Act, 1951 (here inafter referred to as the Act) are wide enough to enter possession and assume management of the industrial concern as well as transfer the right in the machinery or building hyporhected or mortgaged to it and realise tne debt due. Admittedly, the petitioner is a defaulter in the matter of repayment of the loan borrowed by him- Despite the show cause notice issued more than once, he has not repaid the amount in full. Therefore, the corporation has exercised its power under Sec. 29 of the Act and directed the auction sale of the property which it has taken possession of. ( 3 ) THE power undar Sec. 29 of the act was exercised as earlier in august, 1989, The petitioner never questioned that action of the Corporation. It is only when the respondent- corporation published the notice of auction of the properties secured to it which includes both machinery and buildings as evidenced by Annexure-A, the petitioner has approached this court inter slia contending that he should be heard before the power under Sec. 29 of the Act is exercised by the Corporation. ( 4 ) IT is difficult for me to see how a defaulter who admittedly is a defaulter in the matter of repayment of loan may claim right of hearing when he has failed to discharge his obligations under the relevent agreement advancing the loan providing for payment in instalments and also after having hypothecated the machinery and mortgaged the building in favour of the Corporation. Undoubtedly, a person is visited with civil consequences when his property is taken over and sold. But then that is done, only after notice to him and on his failure to comply with the terms of the notice. More than that opportunity is not contemplated. Undoubtedly, a person is visited with civil consequences when his property is taken over and sold. But then that is done, only after notice to him and on his failure to comply with the terms of the notice. More than that opportunity is not contemplated. To invoke the benefit of the rules of natural justice, a party must make out that he had a right for personal hearing If the statute does not provide for personal hearing, any opportunity given for representation in writing or oral would meet adequately the requirements of the rules of natural justice. ( 5 ) SEC. 29 of the Act does not provide for any such opportunity. It is only by virtue of the judge made law that the petitioner is entitled to some opportunity to make a representation. If that opportunity has been given, he cannot now complain that he was not heard before the sale by auction has been advertised. ( 6 ) THE Corporation is funded by public funds in order to promote industrial activity and industrial productivity. Loans are given to enterpreneurs on certain terms and conditions if there is a default in the repayment of the loan, the public money or fund so advanced must be recovered bysspeedy method so that the funds oil the Corporation are never so depleted as to make it ineffective to advances the loans other enterpreneurs who may seek loans. It is with that purpose in mind, the legislature has given special powers to the Corporation in terms of sec. 29 and other provisions in the act. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of The Director of Industries, U. P. and others v Deep Chand Agarwal (A. I R. 1980 S. C. 801) had occasion to consider the validity of Sec. 3 of the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of dues) Act. While repelling the contention that resorting to recovery as arrears of land revenue was arbitrary and therefore violative of Art. 14 of the Coustilution resulting in hostile discrimination the Supreme Court following the decision in an earlier case namely, Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) ltd v Greater Bombay Municipal corporation which had observed as follows:"this is not one of those cases where discrimination is writ large on the face of the statute. Discrimination may be possible but is very improbable. Discrimination may be possible but is very improbable. And if their is discrimination in actual practice this Court is not powerless. Furthermore, the fact that the Legislature considered that the ordinary procedure is insufficient or ineffective in evicting unauthorised occupants of Government and corporation property and provided a special speedy procedure therefore is a clear guidance for the authorities charged with the duty of evicting , unauthorised occupants. We therefore, find ourselves unable to agree with the majority in the Northern lndia Caterers' case. "ruled as follows: "we are, therefore, of the view that Section 3 of the Act which enables the State Government to recover the sums advanced under the circumstances mentioned therein as if they were arrears of land revenue cannot be held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14- of the Constitution. " ( 8 ) THEREFORE, for the reasons have given above and having regard to the deeming provision under sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 29 of the Act, the Corporation, as owner thereof, is free to sell the properties in question. ( 9 ) THE petition is therefore misconceived and it is rejected. Writ petition rejected. --- *** --- .