JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner, a small-scale industrial unit, was sanctioned a total loan of Rs. 7,45,017 for his factory to produce pickles and sauces, etc. from fruits. He received an amount of Rs. 5,94,677. The balance amount of loan was not disbursed in his favour for which he has approached this court for an appropriate direction. 2. In the counter-affidavit the Orissa State Financial Corporation states that even though a major portion of the amount was advanced and that the Corporation on its own persuaded the supplier of the machinery to give quick delivery, yet, because of the inaction of the petitioner, he being not serious in bringing out the project, the Corporation cancelled disbursement of the balance amount. Further, according to the Corporation, since this advancement of the loan was under the refinancing scheme, it was for a period of three years and since the petitioner did not complete the project within that period, that was another ground for not disbursing the balance amount. Thus the Corporation recalled the loan by notice dated May 14, 1993 and June 20, 1995. When the petitioner did not repay the amount nor was prepared for a final settlement in spite of the above notices, the Corporation seized the unit on January 11, 1996. 3. Heard Mr. J.M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and B. M. Patnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 4. There is no dispute with regard to non-disbursement of the balance loan amount of Rs. 2,19,382. Admittedly, the petitioner is in default for payment of the loan amount and that the unit has been seized. But by our interim order, we directed not to hand over possession of the unit without leave of the court. 5. In the case of U. P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) P. Ltd. [1993] 78 CompCas 408 (SC) cited by Mr. Patnaik the Supreme Court has laid down that in a matter between the Finance Corporation and its debtor, the High Court should not sit in appeal against the administrative order of the Corporation relating to the matters under the State Financial Corporations Act, unless there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation or the Corporation has acted unfairly and whimsically. 6. 6. We do not find that there is any statutory violation by the Corporation either by recalling the loan under annexures 10 and 11 or by seizing the unit u/s 29 of the Orissa State Financial Corporations Act. Therefore, this action of the Corporation cannot be questioned. 7. So far as dealing with the petitioner's case unfairly and unreasonably we may point out that there is an allegation against the petitioner that when the unit was seized on January 11, 1996, an inventory was made which disclosed that some machinery and parts were found missing for which an FIR was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge, Jagatpur police sta-tion on January 16, 1996 vide Annexure-A. We do not comment anything as to the correctness or otherwise of the version that the petitioner is responsible for removing the machinery/parts as alleged. But the fact remains that the officers of the Corporation did find machinery/parts installed in the unit missing. Therefore, in such circumstances it could not be proper for this court to direct the Corporation to release the balance loan amount as claimed by the petitioner. 8. Mr. Mohanty has relied on the case of Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others, But the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different from the case cited by Mr. Mohanty and we are not inclined to exercise the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the observation of the apex court that in case the loanee is willing to accept the same terms and conditions as are offered to the third party purchaser, the Corporation should consider the same and deliver back the unit sold, can be made applicable to the present case. 9. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, but without costs. However, if the possession of the unit has not been handed over to the third party, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Corporation. In case he is willing to accept the same terms and conditions as those offered to the third party purchaser, the Corporation shall consider the same and act accordingly in the light of the observation of the apex court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others, and dispose of the mat ter. In case he is willing to accept the same terms and conditions as those offered to the third party purchaser, the Corporation shall consider the same and act accordingly in the light of the observation of the apex court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others, and dispose of the mat ter. The petitioner is hereby given four weeks' time to move the Corporation and the Corporation shall consider the same within a period of four weeks thereafter. The interim orders are vacated and the miscellaneous cases disposed of. P.K. Mishra, J. 10. I agree.