JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, C.J.—The writ petitioner took a loan initially on 22-6-1984 for Rs 2 60 lacs from respondent No 1-Corporation Subsequently, another loan was taken amounting to Rs 1,07,000. The petitioner defaulted in the payment and accordingly notice under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act was issued and unit was sold for Rs. 2 90,000 on 27-4-1992 Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as C. W. P. No. 490 of 1992, The petition was allowed and the respondent-Corporation was given appropriate direction for taking steps for re-sale of the unit and the petitioner was also put back in possession Thereafter, a notice for sale of the unit was published in a newspaper on 14-7-1994 vide Annexure P 11 to the writ petition and subsequently the unit was sold for Rs. 3,62,000 on 25-7-1994. Prior to that, the petitioner was also informed to get better buyer or participate in the auction as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. After the sale by auction, the petitioner was again informed by letter dated 6-8-1994 vide Annexure P-12 to the writ petition, about the sale of the unit and offer received and asking him to produce any better buyer than the above offer within 15 days failing which it will be presumed that the petitioner has no better buyer In reply to the said letter, the petitioner wrote to the Corporation asking for time to get better buyer vide his letter dated 19-8-1994 vide Annexure P-13 to the writ petition. Subsequently, however, instead of getting better bayer the petitioner requested the Corporation to re schedule the outstanding loan vide letter dated 29-9-1994, which is available at Annexure P-14, to the writ petition. As this was not accepted, the unit was sold to respondent No 2, who gave the highest offer of Rs, 3,62,000, and possession was also delivered on 17-11-1994, Hence the present petition. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we hold that direction issued by this Court in the above writ petition has been duly complied with by the Corporation We also hold that sufficient time was given to the writ petitioner to get better buyer, which he failed. He also did not participate in the auction. 3. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we hold that direction issued by this Court in the above writ petition has been duly complied with by the Corporation We also hold that sufficient time was given to the writ petitioner to get better buyer, which he failed. He also did not participate in the auction. 3. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the apex Court in U P Financial Corporation and others v. Naini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Ltd and another, (1995) 2 SCC 754, wherein the apex Court, inter alia, held that unless there is a mala fids, the High Court should not interfere in commercial matters, more particularly, the decisions of the body, like Financial Corporation 4 In the case in hand, we are satisfied that there is no mala fide action on the par! of the Corporation—Respondent No. 1. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Costs on the parties. Petition dismissed.