M. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) HERE is a Writ Petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE relevant fact is very simple and short. The petitioner along with two others of his family members took a loan from Sikkim Industrial Development and Investment Corporation for the purpose of establishment and running of a wire industry in the State of Sikkim at Gangtok. Some part of the loan was repaid, yet some remained unpaid and the same went on growing gradually on account of accumulation of interest on the balance amount. The Corporation (Respondents Nos. 1 and 2) initiated a proceeding being Civil Suit No. 57 of 94 before the Certificate Officer (Respondent No. 4) for issuance of a certificate for Rs. 43,10,636. 00 being the amount outstanding. After necessary enquiry under the Sikkim Public Demand Recovery Act, 1988, a Certificate, as sought for, was issued. ( 3 ) THE certificate was put to execution by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the same was registered as Execution Case No. 3 of 95. The execution case ultimately culminated in the attachment of the factory shed, plant and machinery and bank account standing in the name of M/s. Agarwal Wire Industries Private Limited. ( 4 ) FOR the present we may confine ourselves within the question of auction sale of the factory shed of the company at Bordang, for the purpose of which the date has been fixed on 5-8-96 and the upset price of the property has been fixed at Rs. 6,54,670. 00 A public notification in local newspaper has come up to that effect on 22-6-96. ( 5 ) THE petitioner being one of the Directors of the Company has preferred this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution together with a separate application for stay of the order by which the auction has been ordered for and date of auction has been fixed. In the Writ Petition the two other Directors have been impleaded as Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and the Certificate Debtor Company has been impleaded as Respondent No. 7. ( 6 ) THE Writ Petition and the stay application were filed on 24-7-96 and the same came up in the list on 26-7-96. On that date it was decided, with the consent of the parties, to take up the writ petition as a whole for hearing on 2-8-96. ( 6 ) THE Writ Petition and the stay application were filed on 24-7-96 and the same came up in the list on 26-7-96. On that date it was decided, with the consent of the parties, to take up the writ petition as a whole for hearing on 2-8-96. The parties were given opportunity to put in affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply by 29-7-96. The parties filed their affidavit-in-opposition and affidvait-in-reply accordingly. ( 7 ) THE petitioner who is also a certificate debtor submitted at the very start of the hearing that the debt on the Corporation is admitted but as the debtors are not in a position to pay off the certificate dues they find no other alternative but to concede to the order for realisation of the dues in execution of the certificate. They do not also have any objection to the process of execution by instalments viz. by selling the shed, attachment of bank account, sale of plants and machinery, etc. The only objection for the present is over the fixation of upset price for the factory shed. ( 8 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the upset price as fixed, is grossly inadequate and unjust. It has further been contended that the price was fixed in arbitrary manner without caring for the norms to be followed in such matters and without giving ample opportunity to the certificate debtors to assist the certificate court to arrive at proper price on observance of necessary procedures and conventions. The main fear of the petitioner is that since the upset price is grossly low, bidding would start from that which would cause hindrance towards fetching for proper price for the property in question which according to the petitioner is quite valuable. ( 9 ) WHILE contesting the writ petition and the submission of the petitioner as above, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contend that after giving adequate opportunities to all concerned, the upset price was fixed by the certificate court. The petitioner has been blamed for adopting dilatory tactics to get the execution of the certificate delayed and deferred. They contend that the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner are frivolous with ultimate motive of causing delay to the execution process. The petitioner has been blamed for adopting dilatory tactics to get the execution of the certificate delayed and deferred. They contend that the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner are frivolous with ultimate motive of causing delay to the execution process. It has further been contended that the certificate officer never acted in mala fide manner and therefore his order does not deserve to be interfered with. ( 10 ) FOR the purpose of showing the authority of the court to interfere with the decision of a tribunal like a certificate court, under Art. 227 of the Constitution and also to show the extent of such scope, a good number of decisions have been cited on behalf of the petitioner. Though we do not consider it necessary to enter into the details of those decisions, it would be a failure of duty on our part if we do not make mention of those decisions. Those are D. N. Banerjee v. P. R. Mukherjee, AIR 1953 SC 58, Santosh Kumar v. Mool Singh, AIR 1958 SC 321, Lonand Gram Panchayat v. Ram Giri, AIR 1968 SC 222, Durga Prasad v. Palden Lama, AIR 1981 Sikk 49, Mansaram v. S. P. Pathak reported in (1984) 1 SCC 125 : (AIR 1983 SC 1239) and Chandravarkar v. Ashalata, AIR 1987 SC 117. ( 11 ) THE purpose for which the above noted decisions have been cited has already been noted. The petitioner, from a few of the above decisions further wanted to emphasise that in the instant case the certificate officer caused blatant injustice by dismissal of contentious issues in limine and has resulted in manifest of injustice by not providing appropriate opportunities to the petitioner to establish his plea. It is needless to repeat that the only debate, for the present, is the manner in which the upset price has been fixed. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, in his turn, cited the decision in U. P. Financial Corporation v. Naini Oxygen reported in (1995) 2 SCC 754 : (1995 AIR SCW 254) to substantiate that since the valuation was worked out by the Sikkim Government P. W. Department, reliance should be placed on the same specially when there is no mala fide in the matter of assessment of the price of the structure in question. ( 12 ) TO appreciate the positions of the parties, some dates and facts would be necessary. The certificate debtors approached the High Court with Writ Petition No. 5 of 95 which was decided on 27-5-95 and it was held that the State Government and SIDICO were entitled to recover the certificate amount from the land/building, plants and machinery, fixtures, spares, stores of the factory, other materials from the premises ofthe factory including bank account or any other assets of the company. The matter came up before the Certificate Officer on 2-12-95 when it was ordered that the plant and machinery, fixtures, spares, stores etc. would be sold on the mutually agreed terms on 25-1-96, but if no willing buyer was available on that date, public auction would be resorted to. The respondents were asked to work out the valuation of those properties. The respondents were also asked to get the valuation of land and building ascertained from Sikkim P. W. D. The matter came up before the Certificate Officer again on 25-1-96. On that date the respondents produced the valuation of the factory shed as assessed by the Sikkim P. W. (Building and Housing) Department. It was dated 21-1-96 and the total valuation was assessed at Rs. 6,54,670. 00. The plant machinery could not be valued by that date for want of expertise in this matter within the State of Sikkim. On that date, before the Certificate Officer, both the parties agreed that the sale of the structure by public auction should be made first, keeping upset price at Rs. 6,54,670. 00. The plant, machinery and others would be sold on any subsequent date. Time till 15-2-96 was allowed for the purpose of assessment of valuation of plant and machinery and other articles. The petitioner before us was not present in the Court on that date. The other certificate debtor (Respondent No. 6 before us) was present on behalf of the certificate debtors. A petition was, however, moved on behalf of the petitioner for his exemption from attendance. ( 13 ) THE matter came up further on the board on 15-5-96, a few dates having intervened in between. On 15-5-96 the petitioner intimated that he was not satisfied with the valuation submitted by the SIDICO. He was given opportunity by the Certificate Officer to file any specific objection by 30-5-96. ( 13 ) THE matter came up further on the board on 15-5-96, a few dates having intervened in between. On 15-5-96 the petitioner intimated that he was not satisfied with the valuation submitted by the SIDICO. He was given opportunity by the Certificate Officer to file any specific objection by 30-5-96. On that date (30-5-96) a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner asking for an adjournment on medical ground and for further time to file objection. The prayer was rejected and the Certificate Officer ordered for holding auction on 5-8-96 retaining the upset price as Rs. 6,54,670. 00. Notification was issued and it was published in the local newspaper on 22-6-96. On going through the Notification the petitioner filed a petition on 29-6-96 raising his objection over the assessment of upset price and praying for stay of proclamation of sale and also for a direction on the certificate holder to reassess the value of the property. The said petition, however, was dismissed by the Certificate Officer by an order dated 22-7-96. The Writ Petition together with the stay petition was filed in this Court on 24-7-96. ( 14 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that he was not given adequate opportunity to contest the valuation arrived at for the structure. Learned Advocate for the certificate holder pointed out that the assessment of valuation was made known to the Certificate Debtors on 25-1-96. Not only that, the engineers from the S. P. W. D. visited the factory premises on 10-1-96 with notice to the Certificate Debtors. Had the petitioner or any other Certificate Debtor been serious, they could have put their objection very promptly after 25-1-96. In fact no objection was put forward till before 29-6-96. On this date also the objection was of general type, nothing specific. It has been alleged that the delay has not been explained properly. Even if one concedes that the petitioner was sick from 18th of May till the end of May, nothing prevented him from raising the objection at least before the notice of auction came out in the newspaper. ( 15 ) WE find substance in the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the contesting respondents. Illness of the petitioner is the only ground for delay in submission of formal objection with detailed particulars against the valuation assessed at by the SPWD. ( 15 ) WE find substance in the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the contesting respondents. Illness of the petitioner is the only ground for delay in submission of formal objection with detailed particulars against the valuation assessed at by the SPWD. The medical certificate filed by the petitioner only indicates that he attended the doctor on 18-5-96, 23-5-96 and 25-5-96. In his affidavit the petitioner stated that he could not recover till before first week of June, 1996. Even if we accept all these on their face value, the delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the valuation remains virtually unexplained. It has been contended that certificate debtors did not receive any notice dated 9-1-96 about inspection of the factory premises by CPWD Engineers on 10-1-96. The report of the SPWD shows that detail inspection of the site was made to obtain measurements etc. It was not possible without having a physical inspection of the site. Petitioner does not say that the dimentions given by the SPWD Engineers in their report dated 11-1-96 (communicated to the SIDICO on 21-1-96) are not correct. Therefore, physical inspection was definitely there and knowledge of the certificate debtors in this respect is obvious. ( 16 ) THE petitioner submits a few documents. A circular of the building department dated 20-10-84; A certificate together with a comparative statement, showing cost of construction atdifferent stages starting from 1976, as was granted by a government approved valuer on 1-8-96. An estimate for the valuation of a private building by PWD engineers on 23-5-96; Another estimate dated 20-5-96 for construction of residential quarters in Gangtok proper by the above noted Govt. approved Valuer; A certificate granted by the same valuer on 30-7-96 indicating the rates of construction as in vogue from time to time. The petitioner also cites schedule of rates for different works, as approved by P. W. Department of Sikkim during 1994. It has been contended with reference to those documents that the prevailing rates were much higher than the rate at which the PWD assessed the impugned structure. The petitioner contends that the rates at which the assessment has been made were obsolete and that the PWD committed gross error in making the assessment on the basis of only the plinth area of the structures. They should have assessed other items starting from RCC column to CC flooring. The petitioner contends that the rates at which the assessment has been made were obsolete and that the PWD committed gross error in making the assessment on the basis of only the plinth area of the structures. They should have assessed other items starting from RCC column to CC flooring. ( 17 ) THE documents on which the petitioner relies upon show that in those cases assessment was made item wise and in detail. Most of the documents relate to estimate for construction cost of buildings. In our case, it is not for construction of any new building. Hence, they do not apply in our case. To meet this point the petitioner submits that after assessing the construction cost, the yearwise depreciation is to be assessed and the current value of the building is to be worked out. It has been pointed out that it was so done in case of estimating the valuation of the private building belonging to Shri Naresh Rai on 23-5-96. ( 18 ) IT is true that the above method of assessment of current valuation of any buliding is acceptable for the purpose of sale or purchase of the building or for the purpose of assessment of rent, etc. In all such cases the building should remain intact. But when an assessment for the price of a building is to be made where the purpose of purchase is for removal of the materials of the structure, the same method cannot be effective. Valuation of a building is dependent on various factors and hence by adopting a common method valuation cannot be assessed. Though not strictly a rule of thumb, but approximation is obvious to be resorted to. It might be that the valuation arrived at by the PWD might be on slightly lower side, but that cannot frustrate the auction as a whole. ( 19 ) WE cannot be unmindful of the fact that there would be endeavour from all concerned to get maximum amount fetched during the auction. We may refer to cl. 6 (iv) where it has been provided that sale may be deferred to secure better price. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Certificate Officer or to hold on the auction as scheduled. We may refer to cl. 6 (iv) where it has been provided that sale may be deferred to secure better price. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Certificate Officer or to hold on the auction as scheduled. But we must show our anxiety over the fact that if the structure is sold and removed on demolition by the successful bidder, the plant and machinery would remain exposed causing damage and diminish of their valuation. It would be better if those things could be sold before the structure is removed. The Certificate Officer should make all effort to finalise sale of the plant, machinery and other fixtures before making the sale of the structure absolute. This should be made known to the bidders before the auction starts. ( 20 ) WITH these observations, the writ petition is dismissed on contest without costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .