D. P. WADHWA ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing notice dated 7 August 1991 published in The Hindustan Times by the respondent for auction of property of the petitioner bearing No. 3/3, Block D, Okhia Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, for recovery of its dues from the petitioner. The property is a plot of land measuring 1247 sq. yds. with industrial shed constructed thereon. Dues of the respondent as on 1 August 1991 were Rs. 5,54,420. 30. The respondent is a Corporation under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner had got a loan from the respondent and to secure the same mortgaged its aforesaid property with the respondent. When the petitioner defaulted the respondent proceeded to recover its dues by sale of the mortgaged property in terms of the provisions of the Act. This led to filing of the present petition. Respondent said that various opportunities were granted to the petitioner to square up the dues, but every time on one pretext or the other he got time but failed to make any payment. When this petition was filed by means of an interim order this Court had directed that the property shall not be auctioned and if already auctioned then sale shall notbe confirmed. This orderwas modified and it was directed that the property may be auctioned by the respondent by means of public auction and after giving notice to the petitioner. This in fact was more or less a consent order. Then on one date of hearing the petitioner said he would bring himself a buyer and would give a cheque for Rs. 4,48,000. 00 to the respondent. This offer was accepted by the respondent in the court. It was made clear that if the proposal given by the petitioner was not given effect to within fifteen days the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with the auction of the property. The petitioner again took time on one account of the other, and ultimately the respondent filed an application (CM 3684/93) bringing out all the happenings and prayed that the respondent be allowed to disposed of the mortgaged property as per the. highest offer received by it for Rs. 60. 00 lakhs. Notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner again took time on one account of the other, and ultimately the respondent filed an application (CM 3684/93) bringing out all the happenings and prayed that the respondent be allowed to disposed of the mortgaged property as per the. highest offer received by it for Rs. 60. 00 lakhs. Notice was issued to the petitioner. He sought time to file reply and then on an adjourned date said that he had taken as many as four buyers to the respondent giving offers but these were not accepted. We required the petitioner to file his own affidavit and those of four buyers with complete details as to when they approached the respondent and how much money they were prepared to offier and what were the sources from where these payments will be made by them. We also required that those buyers should be present in court in person. In pursuance of this order the petitioner filed his own affidavit and that ofjagdish Narayan Sharma, Ravi Sarin and Sanjay Gupta. These affidavits are not interms of the order and we are of the opinion that the petitioner has tried to mislead the court. He, it would appear, never visited the respondent with any offer nor he took any buyer to the respondent as claimed by him. As a ma tter of fact in its application (CM 3684/93) the respondent has stated that communications were addressed to the petitioner to pay up the amounts and he was also told of the offer of Rs. 60. 00 lakhs. We certainly did not want that property worth Rs. 60. 00 lakhs be sold for recovry of about Rs. 6. 00 lakhs of Delhi Financial Corporation, but the conduct of the petitioner leaves us with no choice except to allow the respondent to sell the property as per procedure prescribed to recover its dues. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner said that after adjustment of the amount due to the respondent the balance amount should be paid to the petitioner. We see no reason why this balance amount should not be handed over to the petitioner and why should respondent, a Government company, keep this amount. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner said that after adjustment of the amount due to the respondent the balance amount should be paid to the petitioner. We see no reason why this balance amount should not be handed over to the petitioner and why should respondent, a Government company, keep this amount. ( 3 ) AT the time when notice was issued in the petition petitioner had undertaken that if at any future time the property in question had to be auctioned and the writ petition dismissed, then the cost of the auction would be borne by the petitioner. There is no merit in the petition. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to any relief. He has unnecessarily dragged on these proceedings for two years with no honest intention to settle the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim orders made earlier shall stand vacated. Respondent will be entitled to recover the cost of auction from the petitioner as abovementioned. Respondent will also be entitled to costs of these proceedings which we assess at Rs. 5,000. 00.