( 1 ) THE petitioner M/s. Surprise Hotel (Private) Limited got sanctioned a loan from respondent No. 1 i. e. U. P. Financial Corporation (U. P. F. C.) of Rs. 44,80,000-00. Out of which Rs. 43,93,000-00 was disbursed to the petitioner firm. The petitioner also took a loan of Rs. 87. 2 lakhs from respondent No. 2 i. e. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. P. Limited (PICUP ). The hotel was started at some distance of Hardwar and could not pick up business according to the allegations of the petitioner and it ran into rough weather and ultimately it could not repay the loan as agreed. It is alleged that the business of the hotel proved to be in loss on account of terrorist activities and Uttarakhand agitation and mushroom growth of Dharamshalas in the Hardwar. The proprietor of the petitioner firm i. e. J. P. Dubey also expired on 28-12-1995 and it became more difficult for her wife etc. to run it. In brief, outstanding liability went on increasing and despite efforts made to negotiate privately to lease the hotel to M/s. Agra Valley Hotel Private Limited in December, 1994 and also to M/s. Moolchand Export Limited, the petitioner could not succeed in this arrangement. It appears that the Opposite party No. 1 advertised in Times of India on 8-2-1995 for inviting the offer for sale of hotel vide annexure No. 3. to the writ petition. Ultimately the UPFC issued a notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1954 regarding the sale of the hotel and also an advertisement was issued in vernacular Newspaper i. e. Amar Ujala dated 18-8-1995 vide annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner by way of filing the writ petition is as appears from the grounds and during the course of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the value of the hotel was not fixed correctly. The advertisement was issued for Rs. 1. 47 crores and its assets value is not less than Rs. 9 crores. It is alleged that the hotel was sold for Rs. 1. The advertisement was issued for Rs. 1. 47 crores and its assets value is not less than Rs. 9 crores. It is alleged that the hotel was sold for Rs. 1. 85 crores on 15-7-1996 causing huge loss to the petitioner and has described the auction of the U. P. F. C. as unfair and unreasonable and prayed that the sale effected in favour of M/s. New Age Hotels and Resorts limited vide annexure No. CA-3 to the counter affidavit is liable to be quashed. The sale deed was executed and the possession was given to M/s. New Age Hotels and Resorts Limited. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs :" (I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 20-9-1995 (Annexure No. 9) to this writ petition; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents and its employees from interfering with the functioning of the Hotel run by the petitioner at Jwalapur near Shankar Ashram, on Hardwar - Roorkee Road, Hardwar under the name and style "surprise Hotel" during the pendency of this writ petition; (iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and proper; (iv) award the costs of this petition to the petitioner. " ( 3 ) THE case of the respondents as revealed from the counter affidavit is that the petitioner was given an opportunity to repay the loan and also was intimated the price of the hotel for which it is being soled and opportunity to pay that amount or to find a better prospective buyer but the petitioner failed to do so and ultimately the hotel was sold. In other words the case of the respondents is that before selling the hotel every conceivable opportunity was given so that the business should run. It appears from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that on petitioners request auction proceedings was postponed on 24-2-1995 and opportunity was given to the petitioner to liquidate the dues of more than Rs. one crore. The petitioner as per terms of the agreement could not liquidate the amount i. e. Rs. 1,48,31055. 80 paise upto 15-2-1995. The Corporation got assessed the value of the hotel from Shri G. S. Birdie, Government Valuer vide Annexure No. CA-2 for Rs. 1. one crore. The petitioner as per terms of the agreement could not liquidate the amount i. e. Rs. 1,48,31055. 80 paise upto 15-2-1995. The Corporation got assessed the value of the hotel from Shri G. S. Birdie, Government Valuer vide Annexure No. CA-2 for Rs. 1. 606 crores. The respondents also mentioned in the notice given in vernacular newspapers the value of the hotel Rs. 1. 47 crores. It is refuted that value of the hotel got assessed by the petitioner from Shri B. L. Tandon vide annexure No. 8 to the writ petition is totally wrong and exaggerated as the price of the land is exaggerated to the sky and valued the cost of the hotel to Rs. 9. 16 crores. It is also pleaded that the Corporation received offer of Rs. 1. 75 crores but ultimately M/s. New Age Hotels and Resorts Limited offered Rs. 1. 85 crores and offered Rs. 1 crore cash down and balance Rs. 85 lakhs was to be paid in instalments i. e. in four half yearly instalments with a gestation period of six months bearing interest at commercial rate vide terms and conditions of sale (Annexure No. C-3 to the counter affidavit) It is alleged that information was sent to the petitioner that the petitioner could avail this opportunity by offering this amount but no positive response was received. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Shri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued ad infinitum only on the one point that the respondent No. 1 could get a better price and being a trustee of the property has caused loss to the petitioner and act of the corporation is arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioners counsel also submitted that the petitioner has no money from all resources to make payment and could not avail the offer and even the petitioner was not ready to make any alternative proposal at this juncture. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the Corporation submitted that the Corporation is the best judge of its own interest as ultimately money belongs to the Corporation and has made its best efforts to see that the petitioner is rehabilitated and even at one point of time agreed to the proposal of instalment of Rs. 50,000. 00 (annexure No. CA-5) but it was not honoured. 50,000. 00 (annexure No. CA-5) but it was not honoured. He further submitted that every criteria laid down in Mahesh Chandras judgment has been followed, as appeared from the notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and the Corporation got the best possible price. For ready reference Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is quoted below :-"section 29. Rights of Financial Corporation in case of default - (1) Where any industrial concern, which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under an agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, the Financial Corporation shall have the right to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concern, as well as the right to transfer by way of lease or sale and realise the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation. (2) Any transfer of property made by the Financial Corporation, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1), shall vest in the transferee all rights in or to the property transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of the property. (3) The Financial Corporation shall have the same rights and powers with respect to goods manufactured or produced wholly or partly from goods forming part of the security held by it as it had with respect to the original goods. (4) Where any action has been taken against an industrial concern under the provisions ofsub-section (1), all costs, charges and expenses which in the opinion of the Financial Corporation have been properly incurred by it as incidental thereto shall be recoverable from the industrial concern and the money which is received by it shall in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be held by it in trust to be applied firstly, in payment of such costs, charges and expenses and, secondly, in discharge of the debt due to Financial Corporation, and the residue of the money so received shall be paid to the person entitled thereto. (5) Where the Financial Corporation has taken any action against an industrial concern under the provisions of sub-section (1), the Financial Corporation shall be deemed to be the owner of such concern, for the purposes of suits by or against the concern, and shall sue and be sued in the name of the concern. " ( 5 ) WE would like to weigh the submission of the counsel for the parties in the light of Mahesh Chandras judgment and other authorities. ( 6 ) IN Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U. P. Financial Corporation reported in AIR 1993 SC 935 : (1992 All LJ 1202) the Honble Supreme Court laid down the following criteria at page 945 (of AIR) :-"the guidelines/directions which are necessary to be issued to be observed by the Corporation while exercising power under Section 29 are as under :-Every endeavour should be made, to make the unit viable and be put on working condition. If it becomes unworkable : (1) Sale of a unit should always be made by public auction. (2) Valuation of a unit for purpose of determining adequacy of offer or for determining if bid offered was adequate, should always be intimated to the unit holder to enable him to file objection if any as he is vitally interested in getting the maximum price. (3) If tenders are invited then the highest price on which tender is to be accepted must be intimated to the unit holder. (4) (a) If unit holder is willing to offer the sale price, as the tenderer, then he should be offered same facility and unit should be transferred to him. And the arrears remaining thereafter should be rescheduled to be recovered in instalments with interest after the payment of last instalment fixed under the agreement entered into as a result of tendered amount. (b) If he brings third parties with higher offer it would be tested and may be accepted. (5) Sale by private negotiation should be permitted only in very large concerns where investment runs in very huge amount for which ordinary buyer may not be available or the industry itself may be of such nature that by normal buyers may not be available. But before taking such steps there should be advertisements not only in daily newspapers but business magazines and papers. But before taking such steps there should be advertisements not only in daily newspapers but business magazines and papers. (6) Request of the unit holder to release any part of the property on which the concern is not standing of which he is the owner should normally be granted on condition that sale proceeds shall be deposited in loan account. " ( 7 ) IN this case the Corporation has committed a mistake by not releasing the part of the property to raise loan for liquidating the amount. The industrial unit was not standing on that vacant portion. In the facts and circumstances of that case the Honble Supreme Court has held that the conduct of the petitioner was fair and bona fide and opportunity should have been given to rehabilitate the unit. ( 8 ) IN U. P. Financial Corporation v. M. S. Naini Oxygen and Acetylene Gas Limited reported in JT 1994 (7) SC 551 the Honble Supreme Court has held that :-"financial Corporation is independent autonomous statutory body and is free to act according to its own light - In commercial matters, the Courts should not risk their judgments for the judgments of the bodies to whom that task is assigned - On facts Corporation could hardly be blamed for its decision to retrieve towards its dues, whatever is possible - Order of High Court set aside and the Corporation will be free to proceed according to law. " ( 9 ) IN the aforesaid case the Honble Supreme Court further observed :-"however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Corporation is an independent autonomous statutory body having its own constitution and rules to abide by and functions and obligations to discharge. As such, in the discharge of itsit is free to act according to its own light. The views it forms and the decisions it takes are on the basis of the information in its possession and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculations. Unless its action is mala fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however, more prudent, commercial or business like it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Unless its action is mala fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however, more prudent, commercial or business like it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or the lack of it) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the corporation liable. In the circumstances, if the Corporation thought that the revival of the unit even after giving all concessions and reliefs as per the package deal was problematic and the Corporation will stand to lose whatever little it could retrieve towards its dues, the Corporation could hardly be blamed for the same. We are, therefore, of the view that this is not a matter where the High Court should have stepped in and substituted its judgment for the judgment of the Corporation which should be deemed to know its interests better whatever the sympathies the Court had for the prosperity of the Company. In matters commercial, the courts should not risk their judgments for the judgments of the bodies to whom that task is assigned. If the situation was bad on the date of the impugned judgment, it has become worse today. Between 1988 when the IRBI gave its report and this day, the situation has worsened with the further deterioration of the machinery and the spiralling of the liabilities. To grant any indulgence to the Company at this stage will be akin to flogging a dead horse. In the circumstances, we, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Corporation will now be free to proceed according to law. " ( 10 ) IN other words the Corporation formed its own judgment and in the facts and circumstances of the case after inviting objections the Corporation then decides to initiate proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act to realise the amount when the possibility of realising the amount become zero. After all the money advanced by the Corporation is not a corporation property but it is a public money and its holding is on behalf of the public. The Corporation has to pay interest to the public. After all the money advanced by the Corporation is not a corporation property but it is a public money and its holding is on behalf of the public. The Corporation has to pay interest to the public. Idea of advancing loan in a mixed economy is that there should be industrialisation and help by way of loan should be given to the entrepreneurs by way of loan but at the same time situation in our country has reached to such an extent that the entrepreneurs may be on so many reasons do not pay the amount or unable to pay the amount and in that eventuality when the Financial Corporation is unable to recover the loan amount it resorts to provision of Section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act. Crores and crores of rupees of the public money have been fritted away and judicial notice can be taken regarding realisation of the debt by the Financial Corporation. ( 11 ) WE have perused the notice and it appears that the petitioner is unable to offer the price of unit. The petitioner is also unable to find a prospective buyer and also unable to buy the same on the same terms and conditions on which the Corporation has sold the same to the prospective buyer. Sale deed has been executed. We are also of the considered view that the price of the hotel when fetched i. e. Rs. 10500000. 00 which is not at a throw away price at all and assessment has been made by expert mentioned in the report of valuer as annexed by the petitioner is exaggerated. ( 12 ) WE are also of the view that the Financial Corporation has followed the guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandras case (supra) and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as a Court of appeal or review to substitute the judgment of the Corporation. Regarding the policy decision on taking action of the Corporation in the circumstances need no interference. There are certain decisions of this Honble Court on the above subject. Regarding the policy decision on taking action of the Corporation in the circumstances need no interference. There are certain decisions of this Honble Court on the above subject. One of them is in Writ Petition No. 32266 of 1995 M/s. Hundi Lal Jain Cold Storage and Ice Factory (P) Ltd. v. U. P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur delivered by Division Bench regarding action taken under Section 29 (1) of the State Financial Corporation Act by the Financial Corporation. The other is reported in 1996 ACJ 776 M/s. Bharat Modern Rice Mills v. U. P. Financial Corporation holding the action of the Corporation is justified under Section 29 (1 ). ( 13 ) WE would like to make an observation that similar type of observation was made in writ petition No. 32266 of 1995 (supra) that whenevera Corporation takes a decision to resort to the provisions under Section 29 then immediately the writ petitions are filed in this High Court. This phenomenon comes into existence also as soon as the citation under Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 read with U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is issued for the recovery of the amount. It is also challenged in the High Court by way of writ petitions. The Financial Corporation does not resort the provisions of Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act. For ready reference Section 31 is quoted below :-"31. It is also challenged in the High Court by way of writ petitions. The Financial Corporation does not resort the provisions of Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act. For ready reference Section 31 is quoted below :-"31. Special provisions for enforcement of claims by Financial Corporation.- (1) Where an industrial concern, in breach of any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation or where the Financial Corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate repayment of any loan or advance under Section 30 and the industrial concern fails to make such repayment then, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 29 of this Act and of Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 any officer of the Financial Corporation, generally or specially authorised by the Board in this behalf, may apply to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the industrial concern carries on the whole or a substantial part of its business for one or more of the following reliefs, namely :- (a) for an order for the sale of the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation as security for the loan or advance; or (aa) for enforcing the liability of any surety; or (b) for transferring the management of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation; or (c) for an ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery or plant or equipment from the premises of the industrial concern without the permission of the Board, where such removal is apprehended. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall state the nature and extent of the liability of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation, the ground on which it is made and such other particulars as may be prescribed. " ( 14 ) THE Financial Corporation can always file a claim under this Section also independently of Section 29 of the Act and safeguard has been provided under Section 32 of the Act. The debtor can file objections and later on provision for filing appeal has been provided under Section 32 (9) of the Act. " ( 14 ) THE Financial Corporation can always file a claim under this Section also independently of Section 29 of the Act and safeguard has been provided under Section 32 of the Act. The debtor can file objections and later on provision for filing appeal has been provided under Section 32 (9) of the Act. Taking of the management can also be got confirmed from the District Judge. ( 15 ) THE High Court is burdened by spate of litigation challenging the action of Corporation under Section 29 of the Act straightway by giving a colour alleging that the action of the Corporation is unjust, unfair and arbitrary. In most of the cases complicated question of facts are involved and proper sifting is required. The writs are filed even after sales have been confirmed in the name of auction purchaser. The High Court has been reduced in most of the cases as executing Court and also for deciding the objections on sales etc. There is no bar in various cases to challange the action of the Corporation in taking over the unit under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in extreme cases but every case is made extreme case and neither the Financial Corporation file its claim before the District Judge nor the loanee. It has already been referred that there is a complete remedy provided under Section 31 for enforcing the claim and provision for appeal has been also provided to the High Court but hardly this course is resorted and there is more of bye passing than observing it and which has again burdened on the dockets of the High Court. The High Court should not convert itself into a trial Court and decide the facts and also should avoid to decide question of disputed fact otherwise the very role of High Court under Article 226 would be eroded. ( 16 ) IN the light of aforesaid discussion the writ petition is dismissed and we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000. 00 for indulging in frivolous litigation to be paid by the petitioner to the U. P. Financial Corporation. Petition dismissed. .