CHANDRAKANTHARAL URS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner tile works is a partnership firm. This writ petition is presented by one of its partners seeking an order of this court directing the 1st respondent Karnataka state financial corporation to consider the proposal of the petitioner and to treat the petitioner's industries as a sick unit with reference to the repayment of the loan extended by the respondent to the petitioner-firm. ( 2 ) THAT certain sums borrowed have remained unpaid together with interest thereon is not disputed. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Karnataka state financial corporation is likely to take action under sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1961 (hereinafter referredto as theact if the law empowers the respondent financial corporation to take action under sec. 29 of the act in respect of defaulting manufacturersdebtors, this court cannot come to the aid of such defaulters unless it is demonstrable that the action taken or proposed to be taken is not permitted under the act. ( 3 ) THE plea in this court is that the petitioner is in a position to repay the same if certain things are allowed to take place such as realisation of his out standing bills from its customers as well as subsidy available to the petitioner as evidenced by Annexure-J. They are matters which are within the exclusive power and jurisdiction of the financial corporation to consider and accept or reject. This court cannot compel the financial corporation to accept the proposal of their debtors merely because the debtors come to this court. ( 4 ) IN the course of normal business activity, liabilities are incurred by the petitioner-firm and the like, this court will not interfere to protect their interests unless some illegality is pointed out in the actions of the respondent' corporation. In this case, no illegality is pointed out and therefore this court must reject the petition as illconceived. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, this court must also observe that it has no power to gives direction to consider the petitioner's unit as a sick unit. That power is not vested in the respondent financial corporation. That power is vested in the state government under a rate enactment and the petitioner must move the state government for such relief. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, this court must also observe that it has no power to gives direction to consider the petitioner's unit as a sick unit. That power is not vested in the respondent financial corporation. That power is vested in the state government under a rate enactment and the petitioner must move the state government for such relief. If the state government acts under the Provisions of the sick industries undertaking Act, the financial corporation will be bound by the action taken by the government. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter, this writ petition is rejected with the observation that any action taken by the respondent-corporation will be in accordance with law and not contrary thereto. Writ petition rejected. --- *** --- .