R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. Petitioner Pradeep Kumar Mittal, is sole proprietor of the unit M/s Aroma Chemicals. Thus, petitioner is common in both petitions. The questions of law and fact involved in both petitions are common and thus both peti tions can be decided by a common order against which parties also have no objec tion. Writ Petition No. 5119 of 1987 shall be the leading case. 2. Facts giving rise to writ petition No. 5119 of 1987 are that, petitioner took a loan of Rs. 1,70,000 in the year 1971 from U. P. Financial Corporation," Civil Lines, Kanpur. (hereinafter referred to as the Corpora tion ). As the loan was not paid by the petitioner in accordance with schedule provided in agreement a recovery certificate dated 14th July, 1980 was issued by the Cor poration for realisation of amount of Rs. 2,01,245. 42 as land revenue arrears from petitioner. Petitioner by his letter dated 3rd February, 1981 proposed that he has 1. 2 acres land in spare with him which is not used for industrial purposes and has already been mortgaged to Corporation. Petitioner proposed that this land if sold, can fetch Rs. 1,00,000. Petitioner requested Corporation to accord sanction and the manner in which it will execute or arrange to execute the saledeeds. It appears thai, petitioner also deposited Rs. 19,000 with the Corporation. The Corporation vide letter dated 6th March, 1981 requested the Collector to keep the recovery in abeyance for a period of 2 months provided the petitioner pays the collection charges. It was expected that during this period of 2 months the proposal submitted by the petitioner shall be finalised. A copy of this letter has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Finally a letter was written on 27th March, 1981 (an-nexure-3 to the writ petition) by the Cor poration to Collector, Moradabad to treat the recovery certificate dated 14th July, 1980 as withdrawn provided the patty pays the collection charges. In this letter it was also mentioned that party has deposited fur ther an amount of Rs 11,000 and the proposal for the payment of balance dues is under active consideration. A copy of this letter was sent to petitioner with the advice to deposit the collection charges with the Collector and follow the instructons con veyed vide letter dated 6th March, 1981. A copy of this letter was sent to petitioner with the advice to deposit the collection charges with the Collector and follow the instructons con veyed vide letter dated 6th March, 1981. It shall be relevant to reproduce here the in structions given in the letter dated 6th March, 1981: "copy to M/s Aroma Chemicals, Moradabad Road, Chandausi with the advice to remit the collection charges to the Collector. They are further advised to deposit a further sum of Rs. 11,000 by 15-3- 81. They are also advised to bring the boiler and chimney back to the site and instal the same within this month. We also advise you that we agree in principle to allow you to dispose of the excess land measuring 1. 02 acres ap proximately for which you are required to submit. a concrete proposal within this month stating the name of the party who is interested in purchasing the same and the price agreed upon. They are also advised to make payments @ Rs. 5,000 p. m. from April, 1981 onwards till final arrangements. " 3. Thereafter letter dated 3rd April, 1981 (annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) was written by petitioner to Corporation appreciating the withdrawal of the recovery certificate. In this letter various other facts were also mentioned as to how the unit of petitioner could not make profits. By this letter again a proposal was made to sell the land and machinery. Finally it was stated, that the petitioner has land, machinery and building worth Rs. 2. 5 lacs in addition to those listed above which can be offered as security and after the repayment of this amount he requested to grant facility of rephasing of instalments and additional loan etc. Again a request was made to ac cord necessary permission for the disposal of the spare machinery. It appears that, some proposals for the sale of the land were forwarded to the Corporation. Consequent ly, Corporation, vide letter dated 2nd May, 1987, asked the petitioner to visit the office so that discussion may be made to finalise the proposals. Then petitioner wrote a let ter dated 30th May, 1981 that he has sold the land to 7 parties and received Rs. 35,500. from the purchasers. It was also intimated that remaining plots could not be sold in absence of the permission of the Corpora tion. Then petitioner wrote a let ter dated 30th May, 1981 that he has sold the land to 7 parties and received Rs. 35,500. from the purchasers. It was also intimated that remaining plots could not be sold in absence of the permission of the Corpora tion. The rate at which the land was sold was mentioned Rs. 27 per sq. metres and Rs. 20 per sq. metres, according to the situation of the plots. Thereafter correspondence be tween petitioner and respondent continued. On 24th April, 1985 petitioner was re quested to clear overdues as he failed to pay them in spite of the promise made. It is also mentioned if dues are not paid action against petitioner under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), may be taken. On 17th June, 1985 a letter was writ ten by the Corporation to the petitioner that its two officers inspected the Unit on 12th June, 1985 and on inspection it was found that some machinery parts have been removed from the unit. Generator and mortgaged land has been sold. It was stated that on verification it was further found that Generator which was alleged to have been handed over to M/s Rahul Enterprises for repair, does not exist and in spite of best efforts the existence of such firm could not be ascertained. The petitioner was asked to restore the machinery in the unit. In his reply dated 27th June, 1985 petitioner as serted that the land has been sold with the permission of the Corporation. Some ex planation was also given about the missing machinery parts. On 19th April, 1986 Cor poration wrote a letter to petitioner requir ing him to pay the entire overdues within 10 days, failing which the action under Section 29 of the Act shall be taken. It was also mentioned that sufficient time has already been given. Thereafter as the dues were not paid the possession of the unit was taken by the Corporation under Section 29 of the Act on llth September, 1986 and thereafter tenders were invited from willing pur chasers and the unit was sold in favour of respondent No. 3 on 3rd February, 1987 for a consideration of Rs. 1,15,000. Aggrieved by the aforesaid sale petitioner filed this writ petition on 13th March, 1987. 1,15,000. Aggrieved by the aforesaid sale petitioner filed this writ petition on 13th March, 1987. The writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed directing respondent No. 3 not to alienate the machinery of the unit concerned. By means of this petition petitioner has sought relief to quash the sale of the unit in favour of respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21st October, 1986, 4. Writ Petition No. 1742 of 1988 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,21,155 from petitioner as land revenue arrears. It ap pears that after the sale of the unit the aforesaid balance amount was left unpaid, therefore, proceedings were started to recover the amount as land revenue arrears and a citation dated 6th January, 1988 was served on the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount. By this petition petitioner has chal lenged the citation (annexure-1 to the writ petition ). 5. Parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits in the first writ petition. However, in second writ petition in spite of the time granted counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents including Corporation. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the sale of the unit in favour of respondent No. 3 on the ground that the possession of the unit was taken by the Corporation under Section 29 without giving any information to petitioner, during the period steps for rehabilitation of his sick unit were in progress. The property worth Rs. 5,00,000 has been sold for a considera tion of Rs. 1,15,000 and thus a tremendous loss has been caused to the petitioner. The action on the part of the Corporation was arbitrary and mala fide. The advertisement inviting tenders was published on 21st Oc tober, 1986 and last date for submitting tenders was 23rd October, 1986. It has been submitted that the time given was wholly insufficient to attract intending purchasers and the adequate price could not be fetched on account of the short notice. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Mahesh Chandra v. U. P. Financial Corporation and others, AIR 1993 SC935. 7. It has been submitted that the time given was wholly insufficient to attract intending purchasers and the adequate price could not be fetched on account of the short notice. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Mahesh Chandra v. U. P. Financial Corporation and others, AIR 1993 SC935. 7. Learned counsel for the Corpora tion, on the other hand, submitted that the possession of the unit was taken by the Corporation on llth September, 1986 after giving sufficient opportunity to petitioner to pay overdues. In spite of the several let ters written and telegram given the amount was not paid. The land and machinery was sold by the petitioner without permission of the Corporation and the amount received from such sale was not paid to the Corpora tion. In the circumstances, the Corporation had no option but to take action under Sec tion 29 of the Act. In the facts and cir cumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the Corporation acted arbitrarily and did not follow the procedure under Sec tion 29 of the Act. There was no question of any mala fide intention. It has also been submitted that as the petitioner transferred valuable property behind the back of the Corporation, which could be noticed only on inspection of the unit. The Corporation had no option but to transfer the unit to the willing purchaser. It has also been sub mitted that the value of the assets of the unit was got assessed from the Government ap proved valuer and it was found to the tune of Rs. 1,38,412 and in the circumstances the sale of the unit for Rs. 1,15,000 cannot be said to be illegal or for inadequate price. Learned counsel has submitted that the case of Mahesh Chandra relied on by the petitioner was decided by the Honble Supreme Court, much after the action taken under Section 29 of the Act was already concluded. However, even though the guidelines laid down in Mahesh Chandras case were not available but the Corporation had taken all precautions and acted fairly at every stage. The petitioner was granted suf ficient time to pay the amount due from him. At his instance the recovery certificate was withdrawn but the commitments made and assurances given to pay the amount were not fulfilled. In the circumstances, the Corporation was fulfilled. The petitioner was granted suf ficient time to pay the amount due from him. At his instance the recovery certificate was withdrawn but the commitments made and assurances given to pay the amount were not fulfilled. In the circumstances, the Corporation was fulfilled. In the cir cumstances the Corporation was compelled to take drastic action under Section 29 as petitioner himself turned dishonest and ac ting with mala fide, transferred valuable property including machinery and land and the sale consideration received from such sale was not paid to the Corporation. The learned counsel has submitted that now it is not open to the petitioner to question the action taken by the Corporation. Learned counsel has placed reliance in case otchairman and Managing Director SIPCOT, Madras and another v. Contromix Private Limited, by its Director, AIR 1995 S. C. 1632, U. P. Financial Corporation v. Mis Gem Cap (India) Private Ltd. and others, AIR 1993 SC 1435 , and U. P. Financial Corporation and others v. M/s Naini Oxygen andacetylene Gas Ltd. andanother, J. T. 1994 (7) S. C. 551. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that respondent No. 3 has purchased the unit on 3rd February, 1987 for consideration of Rs. 1,15,000 and has paid the whole amount. The price paid by him was adequate then on basis, of the assets available on the site. After purchase of the unit, respondent No. 3 has already invested huge amount to make the unit run and if the sale is set aside after such a long time the respondent No. 3 will suffer ir reparable loss and injury for no fault of his own. It has also been submitted that settle ment of the unit with Respondent No. 3 was with all fairness and there is no material on record to suggest any kind of mala fide. In the circumstances, petitioner has failed to establish any ground calling for an inter ference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. From the facts narrated earlier, it is clear, that the Corporation has been quite considerate in respect of the proposals made by the petitioner. Recovery certificate dated 14th July, 1980 was sent for realisa tion of Rs. 2,01,245 from petitioner as land revenue arrears against the loan of Rs. From the facts narrated earlier, it is clear, that the Corporation has been quite considerate in respect of the proposals made by the petitioner. Recovery certificate dated 14th July, 1980 was sent for realisa tion of Rs. 2,01,245 from petitioner as land revenue arrears against the loan of Rs. 1,70,000 admittedly given to the petitioner in the year 1971. About 9 years had passed but the petitioner did not pay the loan. On the request of petitioner and on his deposit ing certain amounts the recovery certificate was withdrawn when petitioner assured that he shall deposit Rs. 5,000 per month and in the meantime with the help of amount received from sale of the excess land, amount of loan shall be paid back. However, from the facts available on the record it is clear that petitioner did not abide by his own assurances. The actions of the petitioner show that he took a sudden turn immedi ately after recovery certificate was withdrawn by the Corporation. Petitioner transferred the land in favour of 7 persons and realised amount. The allegations are on the record that he also transferred various machinery parts. Vide letter dated 6th March, 1981 petitioner was already asked to restore the boiler and chimney in the urat within a month. However, petitioner fur ther acted in the breach of the conditions and without specific permission of the Cor poration removed or sold other valuable machinery parts. Petitioner had no right to sell any of the properties movable or im movable. However, he transferred valuable property without such permission. In our opinion he acted with mala fide intention and assumed such permission from the con tents of letter dated 6th March, 1981 which, in our opinion, was wholly unjustified. Petitioner was only asked to place the proposals for the proposed sale before the Corporation but petitioner intimated that he has transferred land in favour of 7 per sons. In these facts and circumstances, it is difficult to accept that Corporation acted arbitrarily or with unfairness under Section 29 of the Act. The possession of the unit was taken-on 11th September, 1986. By that time 15 years had already passed as the loan was 1 given in 1971. The Corporation cannot be expected to wait for indefinite period for the recovery of the amount from petitioner. The possession of the unit was taken-on 11th September, 1986. By that time 15 years had already passed as the loan was 1 given in 1971. The Corporation cannot be expected to wait for indefinite period for the recovery of the amount from petitioner. As the petitioner indulged in sale of the movable and immovable property of the unit behind the back of the Corporation, the Corporation Was justified in not accepting the case of petitioner regarding rehabilita tion for which an attempt was being made by him through the Government machinery and other Financial institutions. After the sale of the various parts of the machinery and the land the alleged steps for rehabilita tion were illusory and it appears a case of rehabilitation was developed for gaining the time. Honble Supreme Court in the case of U. P. Financial Corporation v. Mis Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. , (supra) has observed in para 10 of the judgment as under - "it is true that the appellant Corporation is an instrumentality of the State created under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The said Act was made by the Parliament with a view to promote industrialisation of the States by en couraging small and medium industries by giving financial assistance in the shape of loans and ad vances, repayable within a period not exceeding 20 years from the date of loan. We agree that the Corporation is not like an ordinary money lender or a Bank which lends money. It is a lender with a purpose - the purpose being promoting the small and medium industries. At the same time, it is necessary to keep certain basic facts in view. The relationship between the Corporation and the borrower is that of crsditor and debtor. The Cor poration is not supposed to give loans once and go out of business. It has also to recover them so that it can give fresh loans to others. The Corporation no doubt has to aa within the four corners of the Act and in furtherance of the object underlying the Act. But this factor cannot be carried to the extent of obligating the Corporation to revive and resurrect every sick industry irrespective of the cost involved. Promoting industrialisation at the cost of public funds does not serve the public interest; it merely amounts to transferring public money to private account. But this factor cannot be carried to the extent of obligating the Corporation to revive and resurrect every sick industry irrespective of the cost involved. Promoting industrialisation at the cost of public funds does not serve the public interest; it merely amounts to transferring public money to private account. The fairness required of the Corporation cannot be carried to the extent of disabling it from recovering what is due to it. While not insisting upon the borrower to honour the commitments undertaken by him, the Cor poration alone cannot be shackled hand and foot in the name of fairness. Fairness is not a oue way-street, more particularly in matters like the present one. The above narration of facts shows that the respondent have no intention of repaying any part of the debt. They are merely putting forward one or other ploy to keep the Cci poration at bay. Approaching the courts through successive writ petitions is but a part of this game. Another circumstance these Corporations are not sitting on king Solomons mines. They too borrow monies from Government or. otier financial cor porations. They too have to pay interest thereon. The fairness required of it must be tempered - nay, determined, in the light of all these cir cumstances. Indeed, in a matter between the Cor poration and its debtor a writ court has no say except in two situations: (1) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation or (2) where the Corporation acts unfairly i. e. un reasonable. While the former does not present any difficulty the latter needs a little reiteration of its precise meaning. What does acting unfairly or unreasonably mean. Does it mean that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution can sit as an Appellate Authority over the acts and deeds of the Corporation and seek to correct them? Surely, it cannot be. That is not the function of the High Court under Art. 226. Doctrine of fairness, evolved in administrative law was not supposed to convert the writ courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities. The constraints - self-imposed un doubtedly - of writ jurisdiction still remain. Ignor ing them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become ruddeness. " 10. The aforesaid observations of the Honble Supreme Court, are squarely ap plicable to the facts of the present case. The constraints - self-imposed un doubtedly - of writ jurisdiction still remain. Ignor ing them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become ruddeness. " 10. The aforesaid observations of the Honble Supreme Court, are squarely ap plicable to the facts of the present case. As clear from the facts narrated above, the sole aim of the petitioner was to gain time. After paying some amounts, till the recovery cer tificate was withdrawn, he did not carry the promise to discharge his liabilities, instead he started selling the assets of the unit. In the circumstances, he failed to act fairly to the Corporation and now petitioner cannot complain that the Corporation acted. with haste and unfairly against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Mahesh Chandras case, laid much emphasis on the fact that the tenders were invited on 21st October, 1986 and the last date for submission of tender was 3rd October, 1986. It has been submitted that time given was to short to attract the intending purchasers. If this fact is considered in isolation the sub mission of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be accepted. However, if this fact is considered alongwith the conduct of the petitioner of selling the movable and immovable properties and removing various machinery parts from the unit site, it cannot be said that the action of the Cor poration was arbitrary. Any prudent person in such facts and circumstances cannot wait for long period and any reasonable person could have serious apprehension that petitioner may remove or sell the remaining property also so as to leave nothing at the unit site to be recovered by the Corporation. The case of Mahesh Chandra has been con sidered in various subsequent judgments of the Honble Supreme Court which have been referred to earlier and it has been said that position of the Corporation, as to whether, it has acted fairly or not should be assessed in light of the facts and circumstan ces of each case. The case of Mahesh Chandra has been con sidered in various subsequent judgments of the Honble Supreme Court which have been referred to earlier and it has been said that position of the Corporation, as to whether, it has acted fairly or not should be assessed in light of the facts and circumstan ces of each case. In case of U. P. Financial Corporation v. Mis Naini Oxygen and Acetylene Gas Ltd. (supra), in para 21 of the judgment Honble Supreme Court has ob served as under: "however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Corporation is an independent autonomous statutory body having its own con stitution and rules to abide by, and functions and obligations to discharge. As such, in the discharge of its functions, it 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. 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. " 11. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Cor poration was justified in taking actioirunder Section-29 of the Act and promptly selling the property. According to the assessments trtade by. Government approved valuer, the property was worth Rs. 1,38,000 and it was sold by inviting tenders for Rs. 1,15,000 which cannot be termed for inadequate price. The action was in respect of a loan given in the year 1971. Now 25 years have passed. After such a long time we do not find it to be a fit case for any interference under Article 226. Respondent No. 3 purchased the property 10 years before and it can be assumed that during this period of 10 years the business run by him must have achieved stability and it shall not be proper and just to uproot him after such a long-time. Respondent No. 3 purchased the property 10 years before and it can be assumed that during this period of 10 years the business run by him must have achieved stability and it shall not be proper and just to uproot him after such a long-time. On ac count of inordinate delay it has also become difficult to adjust the equities. In the cir cumstances the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be rejected. . 12. Coming to the second petition, it appears that, recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,21,155 was stayed by this Court in view of the pendency of the first writ petition. As no merit has been found in the aforesaid writ petition there appears no impediment as to why this amount may not be recovered from the petitioner as land revenue arrears. No submissions were made before us so far this petition is concerned. Nothing has been shown to us as to how recovery of the amount is violative of statutory provision or ihe Corporation is unfair and unreasonable. In the circumstances, this writ petition also has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. For the reasons stated above, both the petitions are dismissed. The interim or ders dated 13th March, 1987 in the writ petition No. 5119 of 1987 and interim order dated 4th February, 1988 in writ petition No. 1742 of 1988 are vacated. 14. There shall be however, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .