Judgment :- 1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent from bringing the petitioners property, viz., No. 50, Ranganagar, Thiruneermalai Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, for Public auction under S. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. The petitioner is an erstwhile employee of the Central Government. He availed of the facility of House Building Advance, It is claimed that the loan sanctioned was Rs. 26,600, that the first instalment of Rs. 10,640 was released and paid to the petitioner on 4-6-1977 and the second instalment of the like amount of Rs. 10,640 was also released and paid to the petitioner on 1-8-1978 and the petitioner did not proceed with further construction. It is also stated that the petitioner has not claimed the third instalment. 3. It appears that the utilisation certificate in respect of the amounts borrowed already was not furnished. While matters stood thus, by an order dated 30-11-1982 the petitioner appears to have been removed from service and till that date, only a sum of Rs. 4,050 was recovered from the petitioner towards the loan account. After the removal of the petitioner from service, the office of the Regional Director (the respondent herein) called upon the petitioner to pay the balance of Rs. 17,230 together with interest. Since he did not comply with the demand, the matter appears to have been entrusted to the approved auctioneers Murray & Company, to bring the property of the petitioner to sale by way of public auction. It is at this stage, the writ petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as at the time of hearing, it was contended that the respondent is not entitled to invoke the provisions of S. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and that the respondent has not properly adjusted the amounts due to the petitioner from the Department. 5. The respondent in his counter affidavit relies upon the provisions contained in S. 69(1)(d) of the Act read with Cl. (iv) of the mortgage deed dated 21-3-1977 executed by the petitioner as empowering the respondent to proceed under S. 69 of the Act. The provision in Cl. 5. The respondent in his counter affidavit relies upon the provisions contained in S. 69(1)(d) of the Act read with Cl. (iv) of the mortgage deed dated 21-3-1977 executed by the petitioner as empowering the respondent to proceed under S. 69 of the Act. The provision in Cl. (iv) of the mortgage deed specifically empowers the mortgagee to sell the mortgaged property or any part thereof either together or in parcels and either by public auction or by private contract without the intervention of the court. 6. In view of the said stipulation contained in the very mortgage deed, the provisions of S. 69(1)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act which provides for invoking the powers under that Act where a power of sale without the intervention of the Court is expressly conferred on the mortgagee by the mortgage deed and the mortgagee is the government, squarely get attracted, and the objection on behalf of the petitioner questioning the power and the competency of the respondent to invoke the provisions of S. 69 of the Act to have the property sold without the intervention of the Court has to fail as of no substance and the plea of the petitioner shall stand rejected. 7. Regarding the other claim relating to the failure on the part of the respondent to adjust the amounts due from the Department, the respondent has filed a statement of accounts annexed to the counter affidavit giving the details of the amounts due to the department as on 30-9-1983 to be Rs. 26,919.39 and the amounts due to the writ petitioner from the Department to be Rs. 4,005. There is no reply to these claims made in the counter affidavit and there is no objection whatsoever to the figures furnished. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the amounts due to the petitioner may be adjusted as against the loan account. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly contends that unilaterally such adjustment cannot be made having regard to the nature of the amounts due and the governing provisions of law. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move the authorities, if he so desires, and comply with any formality required to have such adjustment made by executing the necessary documents as required by the Department. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move the authorities, if he so desires, and comply with any formality required to have such adjustment made by executing the necessary documents as required by the Department. But that cannot have any impact on the right of the Department to proceed against the petitioner and the property mortgaged under the provisions of S. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Cl. (iv) of the mortgage deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the notice given already is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. I consider it to be unnecessary at this stage to go into that aspect. Having regard to the long lapse of time, the respondent would do well to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing appropriate and proper notice in accordance with law to the petitioner and proceed to recover the money due to the department, if necessary, by invoking the provisions of S. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. Except clarifying the position that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move the authorities for making appropriate adjustment of the amount due to him towards the loan account, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.